Beyond bizarre: University of Graz music professor calls for skeptic death sentences

[Update, Parncutt has pulled his page, the webcite link still works, 1:00 am PDT 12/24/12 ~mod]

UPDATE2:  9AM PST 1/24 The Parncutt page now gets a 404 “file not found” error, which to me suggests that University of  Graz officials pulled the plug on it rather than Parncutt, as Parncutt alludes to and expects the reactions in his ugly essay and was prepared for them. Based on his demeanor, if he had pulled it, I posit that he would have left some rationalization essay in its place. In the wake of well known mass shootings this year, I suspect the University of Graz didn’t want this PR disaster on their hands before it got beyond the blogging world and into the MSM. See below for the page that I archived using an established and accepted archiving service  – Anthony

UPDATE3: 5AM Dec 25th, Parcutt’s page has returned, completely rewritten without a hint of the ugliness of the previous one. It’s a Festivus miracle! I blame the airing of grievances. – Anthony

The bizarre world of AGW proponentry continues. I wonder how David Appell will react to this one? Jo Nova tells us of the latest climate ugliness that is beyond bizzare, and, even more disturbing, we see who’s motiviating this man’s hate. – Anthony

Richard Parncutt

Jo Nova writes:

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

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?)

Here’s a quote from Parncutt:

“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.”

Read the whole story here at Jo Nova’s place: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/death-threats-anyone-austrian-prof-global-warming-deniers-should-be-sentenced-to-death/

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

This is the ranting of a person who has become propagandized.

Reading Parncutt’s web page at the University of Graz it becomes clear where his delusions originate from. He names the websites “Skeptical Science” and DeSmog blog as his sources.

“For a reputable summary of arguments for and against GW, see skepticalscience.”

“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.”

As his affirmed sources for his article calling for the death of climate skeptics, John Cook and Jim Hoggan now own this despicable ugliness. The question is: will they care? And will they condemn this or agree by their silence?

My guess is neither John Cook nor Jim Hoggan will have the moral integrity to condemn this man’s delusional hatred. I hope to be proven wrong.

Since his page will likely be modified or disappeared once University of Graz officials realize they have a rogue PR disaster on their hands, I’ve permanently archived the page here:

Richard Parncutt. Death penalty for global warming deniers?. University of Graz. 2012-12-24. URL: http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/climatechange.html. Accessed: 2012-12-24. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6D8yy8NUJ)

374 thoughts on “Beyond bizarre: University of Graz music professor calls for skeptic death sentences

  1. Mentioned this before this article was posted but it bears repeating , does anyone have access to/know how to use the “wayback machine” web archive ?
    I can see this page getting “disappeared” rather quickly from the university website , assuming it`s not a spoof site or a send-up

    Reply: Anyone can access the wayback at archive.org, but there is no way to permanently archive the information there. It the professor above or his IT dept adds a no archive tag to certain text files, it is likely that the information, even if now archived, will disappear in the future. Even webcite, which Anthony uses, will remove information at the copyright holder’s request, but it’s a little tougher for them. Print a PDF and save it, or taking screen grabs is another option, but there is no organized or centralized repository for such records. ~ mod

  2. If Herr Parncutt is serious, it helps explain how otherwise intelligent people embraced mass murdering ideologies like Communism and Nazism.

  3. You talk about the Professor’s “solutions”, I was wondering why you didn’t just go the whole hog and call them “final solutions”, a term once quite popular in Austria. Hmm…why do I have this irresistible urge to draw a little black moustache on his picture…..?

  4. AGW fraudsters like Parncutt, HAVE TO resort to threats of violence. Otherwise evenually the public will catch on, and realise that these people are pedling a deliberate and planned fraud. These people know that there has been no warming for 16 years now, and that if this trend continues for just another 4 years, then the public will all of a sudden realize, that there has been no warming for “20 years”, and this was nothing but a massive, deliberate and pre-meditated fraud. There will be calls for long jail sentances for these (alleged) fraudsters. I believe the like of Parncutt, Hansen et al., now realize they are going to jail for their deception and the billions wasted due to their fraud, so they are now doubling up their rhetoric, in a last ditch effort to convince anyone who listen.

  5. I am sorry Herr Professor but you premise is badly out of kilter with reality. The delusional people are not the science skeptiks but those who assert that the science is settled. Science is never settled. It is a subject for constant debate. to paraphrase Einstien said when the Nazi’s presented a book in which 100 eminent scientists said he was wrong “If I was wrong it would have taken only one to prove it”

    Just because you believe that 1 x X = Y does not mean that all agree that your assumption that the number you have assumes = X is correct. If the assumed number for X is incorrect then the entire equation is suspect. It would appear more and more obvious that the X assumed by the IPCC and their cohorts with respect to Climate Forcing Mechanisms is incorrect. So if that is so then who, in the face of evidential proof, would be the “denier” then ?

  6. Does John Gummer (UK politician) realise Parncutt cites The World Future Council as his inspiration? Gummer is a WFC member – listed on their website.

  7. True believers of almost any stripe have the potential for great violence. As the models and reality diverge, the warmistas become more strident and shrill. This nutbar seems like a bad joke, but there are enough noble cause tyrants out there that the AGW “debate” could turn even uglier. Very scary.

  8. I sent the following email to the university:
    Dear Sirs,
    I am astonished that you allow professor Parncutt to use your web site to advocate the violence of capital punishment against scientists who express opinions with which he disagrees. I thought you dispensed with this kind of thinking about the middle of the last century.

    Sincerely,
    John Slayton
    260 Sundance Ct
    Azusa CA, USA

    PS. I am a skeptic. If any of Professor Parncut’s have thoughts of taking it upon themselves to implement his program, be aware that I live in a country where citizens are authorized to arm and defend themselves from would-be assassins.

    (Should read Parncutt’s followers)

  9. wow so true history repeating itself. People becoming like Hitler without even realizing it.. must think more..

  10. Funny thing for a leftie to say, considering that socialism, in all of its guises, has been the greatest single cause of death of man. To them, a 100 Million deaths here and there does not matter as long as the cause is right. Now they want to condemn mankind to a future of poverty and death to satisfy their lust for power.

  11. I would say it was unbelievable, but it’s completely par. Those who don’t SAY this are actually thinking it. The thought, the very idea, that they might be wrong, or their assessment could be in error, never even seriously enters their heads. It jars them that others find their conclusions to be wrong. I’m certain that AGW believers are as convinced of their rightness as ANY religious fanatic.

    And really, that’s what it is about. Religion. It has been centuries since any Christians seriously believed that nonbelievers should be killed, and, well Islam still seems to encourage the belief. And always, the same who mock and deride religion are completely unaware that they are in the grips of the replacement.

    “Progressives” should be proud of what they have created. The success rate is staggering. Mr Hilter invaded Europe with a lower percentage of “true believers” and a higher percentage dragged unwilling into the pointless world-changing battle. The futility of both, however, is equal.

    (For anyone keeping track, YES I’ve referenced both religion and Nazism in the same post, and YES I believe AGW believers and crusaders are completely identical in mindset, and will have equally or greater destructive results to civilization)

  12. What a poisonous little piece of propagandism. Used to be you had to lift the stone to see such creatures scuttling around. I wish our musical Prof a happy, Stockhausen-filled Christmas.

  13. Hitler’s informative years were spent in Graz. Many of his relatives lived there. I suspect the Professor may be waving the family flag. Open the door of the Graz asylum please. Let him in and close it….Quickly!

  14. Shorter version: “I am a neurotic beta male nerd and wish to take out my frustrated vengeance upon the world. I will construct a white knight fallacy and revenge fallacy to insulate myself from my own deep seated self loathing. “

  15. Well we had English ‘luvvies’ and the bird from the X-files detonating children who didn’t believe in Global Warming, now we have a music academic….seems to me like the less one understands the science the more extreme one’s beliefs.

  16. Another Lewandowsky. Why are there so many unhinged Australian (He was born and educated-indoctrinated in Australia) ‘professors’?

  17. funny – austrian calls for death penalty for people that don’t agree with him!

    Totalitarianism is alive and well in Graz just wearing a different hat.

  18. Time to stop calling things by their politically correct names. Thanks to some forgotten soul on this blog some days ago, the correct appelation for such creatures is “warmunists.” L

  19. They loose thier religion!
    They went allin with the argument and belife that they had the science behind thier mathusian domesday religion. Now when its totally clear thet thier “science” is pure junnkscienca and they cant win any scientific debate this is whats left for them stupid hate from loosing. From riding on high horses they are now down in the mud and know that we are laughing at them. They all ready hated sceptics just for not beliving in CAGW doctrine when we on top of that proove them wrong they jiust cant handle the situation. These are dangerous people but thank good they are loosing influence and power. The staggering numbers if fruitcsces showing them slfes within the CAGW ranks just make yu wonder whats wrong with them all? Totally blind evil fanatics.

  20. So he’s supporting a petition – with 199 supporters – 999,801 NEEDED

    “…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…”

    Just think how many millions of “future people” we’d have now if there hadn’t been a forced removal of 5 – 6 million European Jews in 1945.

  21. As a mass murderer of future people on a modest scale, I have to say that it’s really nice not having to fit actual murdering into my daily schedule or waste time wiping blood off my hands. I’ve seen Dexter, killing people is WORK. This way seems much easier.
    Only thing is, I’m not quite sure what I’m doing that Parncutt isn’t, apart from not expressing absurd views. Oh, wait….

  22. He’s a Prof. of Systematic Musicology????! What on Earth is that exactly? Did he make this rediculous statement expecting the world to end Dec 21, 2012? Another attempt to de-humanise those who hold a different PoV. Sounds very familar!

  23. I am a music composer. Therefore, I am as much entitled to my opinion on climate matters as a mentally disturbed musicologist from the parasite-infested Museum of the Past Glory, which is Europe. However, my opinion on musicologists should carry a bit more weight, shouldn’t it?

    Composers write music — good or bad, this is for listeners to decide. Musicians perform it — some are excellent, the others awful — this, again, is for the audience to decide. There are music teachers; some of them are useful. A good music teacher is usually an old person, a former successful professional performer; he demonstrates many technical skills and explains, how to acquire them. As in any teaching profession, good music teachers are rare. Effective musical education is possible only in a personal setting (one teacher, one student; frequent regular classes; practical demonstration and training only, no theoretical idle talk).

    And then there are musicologists… Historically, these were summarily despised by successful professional musicians. Musicologists are useless chatterboxes, producing nothing but tons of scrap paper. Ostensibly they study the way music is written — but they cannot write music themselves, and no music composer ever used their scribbles as a guidance. Ostensibly musicologists are “scholars” — but (excuse me for not mincing words) a prostitute on a street corner is more useful to fellow human beings than a scholar of this sort. Unlike a musicologist, a prostitute has to earn her living by doing something real, however disgusting.

    A musicologist is a truly pathetic academic parasite. He doesn’t satisfy any social or cultural need but consumes social resources to produce nothing but endless blah-blah about works of genius, the soul and essence of which he is incapable of comprehending.

  24. Now where did the University hide that red button. Boy, its all in the warmist camp, the Gliecks, The Lewandowskis’s, I wonder what they will Cook up next. Its rather pathetic to see them continue along this path…… but that’s what happens when Flim Flannery and tricks fail, they don’t like the truth.

  25. 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 under current 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.

  26. P.S.

    It is considered “politically incorrect” nowadays to judge a person by his or her appearance.

    I vehemently disagree with this groundless notion: much of what you need to know about a human being is written, clearly and for all to see, on his or her face.

    Just look at this professor Parncutt! Look at Michael Mann, look at Joe Romm, look at Peter Gleick. What pathetic faces, what nauseating, poisonous expressions, what turpitude! These are people making their living by lying. Professors do it at the behest of powerful masters, manipulators of society — but of course professors explain it to themselves as a saintly, self-effacing work for a precious cause (incidentally providing them with very comfortable living at taxpayers’ expense).

    How else? Don’t we all want to think well of ourselves? Little worms want to have a high self-esteem, too.

    Professors, professional liars… They are at it every moment of their existence. Constant preoccupation with weaving lies and rationalizing them in more and more devious words leaves an unmistakable impression on their appearance.

  27. Shocking! What a queer statement! Welcome back in a medieval world!But just have a look on this “professors” site and you will see from his bundle of activities and opinions, that he’s obviously not burdend with his job. A notorious “Well-meaning-man” and, as you know, well-meant is the contrary to well-done!

  28. I am not at all surprised.

    It was only a matter of time before we saw this type of insanity raise its head. Lewandowsky set the stage, Robyn Williams of the ABC took it a step further and now Parncutt is sending up the next trial balloon. Each time another line will be crossed until we are afraid to mention our disbelief in CAGW for fear of physical retaliation.

    Everything was supposed to be a done deal by Copenhagen, 2009. Now the weather is very likely to turn cold as they darn well know and the time to ram through the global warming treaties is slipping away fast. The IPCC report was let out of the bag too soon so they HAVE to come up with a way to silence us.

    The frustration of course is not about CAGW but about the possibility of losing the grand socialist utopia the CAGW scam was supposed to usher in. The whole scheme of Agenda 21 and ‘global governance’ is being revealed for what it is. In the USA state resolutions against Agenda 21 have passed in Tennessee and Alabama and are being pushed in many other states. There is even growing resentment of the ‘Global Governance’ poster child, the EU. Everything is falling apart before it could be solidly locked in however with Obama a second term president there is still hope and they will grab it and fight HARD.

    Be very very careful Anthony. I have already had one outspoken on line/e-mail friend suddenly disappear in the height of a political battle so please do take care.

  29. Um, isn’t advocating for death of those whom you do not like considered “Hate Speech”?

    Isn’t it a “Hate Crime” to advocate for the death of those whom you do not like?

    Are not “Hate Speech” and “Hate Crimes” something that most Universities say are bad things?

    If you take his statement and instead of “GW deniers” put in Blacks, Hispanics, Women, Gays, Jews, Asians, or heck, even “White male”; would it not be found vile, unacceptable, “Hate Speech”?

    Waiting for the Hardcore Globalist Warmers to ‘spain why this time is different…

    • E.M. Smith,

      Generally, hate speech is defined as speech against a protected class. Unfortunately, while convicted felons are a protected class in my home town, Climate Skeptics are not, and I doubt they are in Austriastan.

  30. Please don’t rush to judgement. You might be discussing a delightful person, a cultured and considerate person whose mind has been filled with extreme views in which he believes honestly and deeply. There are many people who sincerely believe that humanity is threatened and separating into two opposed groups, in the same way that The Sex Pistols are dangerous to the sacred music of Mozart.
    You are not going to change this person by insult or reasoning. You should not bother, for that will merely renew his determination to utter more statements.
    Why not just leave it alone now and use the old adage “All publicity is good publicity”?

  31. He’s got ‘em on the list — he’s got ‘em on the list;
    And they’ll none of ‘em be missed — they’ll none of ‘em be missed.

    Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
    All centuries but this, and every country but his own;…

  32. So much for Parncutt’s petition!

    “Sign this petition
    with 199 supporters
    999,801 NEEDED”

    After 5 months’ he can only find 199 Ecoloons to support it.

  33. It’s even more bizarre.
    Graz is the native town of former former Governor Schwarzennegger and they named their stadium after him. But in 2005 he refused to pardon a death row inmate and because of that they renamed it into “Stadion Graz-Liebenau”, now UPC-Arena.

  34. WUWT is an open forum, with the lightest of moderation. Studied opinions are politely entertained here, as Prof. Jerome Ravitz can testify.

    I’m sure Anthony and everyone else will agree that Prof. Richard Parncutt, and his acknowledged ethical co-adjudicator, Prof. John Sloboda, are welcome to come here and make their case in open debate.

    Dr. Sloboda is an interesting case. He is an emeritus professor of Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme, UK, where he researched psychology and music. He is also senior management of the Oxford Research Group, which bills itself as, “a leading independent think-tank that has been influential for 30 years in pioneering the idea of sustainable approaches to security as an alternative to violent global confrontation…” (my bold). The inadvertent irony is astonishing.

    Do they have the courage to openly, freely, and rationally debate their convictions — here in public — with those they have convicted? I don’t doubt for a second that Anthony would give them a forum.

    So, I invite their guest post on WUWT, am anxious to see them rationally defend their judgment, and very much look forward to the opportunity of a debate. I’m sure they’d be treated with respect on WUWT.

    And if their inspirators, John Cook and the DeSmogBlog team, would like to join the fun and defend the Austrian death penalty, I’m equally sure they’d be welcome.

    The ball is in their court. Do they have the courage to contest their convictions?

  35. Nice fella, here he is in a published letter in the Guardina

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2012/nov/27/guardian-weekly-letters-30-november

    To avoid the US fiscal cliff, the rich will have to pay more tax (16 November). The democratically elected US president has a mandate, but Congress, which is dominated by millionaires, will try to stop him. This is corruption at the highest level. Democracy? You must be joking. Off with their heads? Today, we prefer to avoid violence, although millions are dying of hunger and preventable disease worldwide, killed indirectly by the selfishness of rich politicians.
    Richard Parncutt
    Graz, Austria

  36. [that’s just not helpful to the discussion, maybe something similar with a lighter, perhaps humorous touch ~ctm]

  37. 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?

  38. Yes, the page has gone. What is surprising is that it stayed there since at least 25 October 2012.

    That’s two months before the University twigged to the nonsense he sprouts and decided to remove it.

  39. Adam, Re: 404, I have an html format download of Richard Parncutt’s death penalty page, which I’d be happy to send to Anthony for archiving.

  40. just sent the followin e-mail:

    Dear Mr. Parncutt,

    I believe that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs. I also belive that statistically insignificant trends do NOT represent extraordinary proofs, neither does research where the data is not made available for peer reviews, nor computer models that fail to predict reality.

    I also belive that arguments based on correlation instead of proven causation and negative arguments of the type “we do not know what is causing this so it must be caused by that” are not extraordinary proofs.

    Please let me know if this is enough in your view to have me killed, or should a few years in a reeducation camp be enough to cure me from beliving in the scientific method?

    yours
    Sandor Bende-Farkas
    six sigma master black belt

  41. This man is thankfully not a musician. I can’t imagine the dissonance he would be capable of, especially that of the cognitive variety. What a leech. The page is gone, thankfully, and viral through the wayback machine.

  42. Aw shucks ctm. Just wanting to wish the Aussie bloke a merry Xmas.

    Reply: Feel free to do so, I’m now signing off my guest appearance bye. Oh crap I forgot the new style rule until now ~mod

  43. With just a very little re-education the man would fit very well into the BNP. This is a truly shcking story – and he clearly thinks he has reached a logical, well-reasoned position. Witch-hunts next?

  44. Firstly, he is an Australian. How embarrassment for me and my nation.

    I think this is his pitch to get his snout in the trough, must be more grants money available than there is for music studies.

  45. Alex says:
    December 24, 2012 at 12:08 am
    Another indication that cagw is a religion. This is a call to kill the infidels.

  46. This is indeed very wrong. I just sent Mr Parncutt this reply by email:

    Dear Mr Parncutt,

    Please allow me to introduce myself.

    My name is … … and I live in The Netherlands.

    Today I found out that you want the death penalty for global warming deniers.
    (http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/climatechange.html which is now on a 404-error and not showing anymore)

    I am a skeptic and in your words a global warming denier. The fact that you threathen people with death who disagree with your opinion is sinister and very wrong. You should reconsider your statement and plead for open debate in stead of killing your opponents.

    In the meantime:

    Would it come so far that you start your plan of killing people for their ideas, here is my adress:

    … … …
    … … …
    The Netherlands

    Please don’t shoot me in front of my son.

    In case you have outsourced the killing, let me know where I may show up for transport to a death camp or a public execution. You do realize that I and other skeptics have kids too? And that we want the best for them in the future too?

    Remember this: “When people stop talking, bodies are produced instead of words.”

    Looking forward to your reply.

    Yours sincerely,

    … …
    The Netherlands

    (I have hidden my name and adress here, but not in the original email)

  47. I would like to see him name just 10 people who have yet to be born who have been killed by “Influential GW Deniars”…

    Show me the body…

  48. Imbeciles like Parncutt are actually an asset to skeptics (but keep them away from sharp objects).

    They demonstrate just how imbalanced their CAGW cult truly is, and erode the credibility of the global warming alarmist movement.

    Some history on threats against skeptics:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/22/letters-i-get-letters/#more-59917

    About a decade ago, I wrote an article in the National Post, saying that Canada should not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

    I soon received an angry, threatening email from someone who held me personally responsible for the flooding of the City of Prague.

    I replied:
    Dear Sir, you are entirely correct.
    I am the One fully responsible for the flooding of Prague.
    Now “run along”, or I’ll do it again.

  49. There’s (still) some more delusion at the bottom of his profile webpage.

    “We need a global wealth tax!
    Global warming is really happening. It is due to human activities, largely irreversible, and a massive threat to future generations (more). It could be stopped by programs financed by new global taxes on wealth, environmental damage and financial transactions. But the rich are hiding US$ 30 trillion in tax havens, and global warming deniers and media are distorting the facts, which is risking the lives of hundreds of millions. Not only that – fossil fuels are still being subsidized! If you are concerned, please either sign my petition or send me a suggestion for improving it. And sign up to 350.org.”

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

  50. Geoff Sherrington says:
    December 24, 2012 at 12:46 am

    Please don’t rush to judgement. You might be discussing a delightful person…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You are either very young or very sheltered. Either way you have not learned from history. These people are not playing games and we have had enough recent history to know if they grab power people DIE. Do I have to name the names of these ‘delightful people’?

  51. Buggar……..one of ours. With the L, not without.
    At least he’s a Victorian, not a West Australian.

    I wonder if he’s a mate of Robyn Williams?

  52. Emailed Prof Neuper, University rector. Parncutt should, in any decent world, be dismissed for gross misconduct for such absolute stupidity.

  53. Death threats from an angry Austrian artist? …..that can safely be ignored…………or

  54. Parncutt’s page has also been cached by Google in full

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

    and text only

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?strip=1&q=cache:http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/climatechange.html

    —————————-
    The World Future Council page Establishing Crimes Against Future Generations

    http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/fjcrimes.html

    has been waybacked

    http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/fjcrimes.html

    and has also been webcited here

    http://www.webcitation.org/6D9Bgx1kO

    —————————–
    See also

    http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/ecocide.html

    which has been webcited here

    http://www.webcitation.org/6D9C0Q94G

    And

    http://www.change.org/petitions/we-need-a-global-wealth-tax

    This is a litmus test for every alarmist.
    But I’m not going to comment further.
    It’s Christmas and I’ve got other things to.
    Again, Merry Christmas everyone
    Don’t let $*&gh! idiots like this get you down.

  55. I can’t say much without it being snipped. What I will say is this: when they kick, kick back harder.

  56. Ernest R. Hilgard was a famed experimental and theoretical psychology prof at Stanford who found that hypnotizability is more or less normally distributed. Thus, about 15% of the population is very suggestible. He worked with about 5,000 individuals and his findings were confirmed at Harvard with group testing, using recorded inductions and suggestions.

    The more fanatic individuals in various political and social groups probably derive from this sub-population. For example, Pakistan madrasas produce a flow of suicidal Taliban from the highly suggestible fraction.

    There is also an interesting phenomenon called ‘absorption’, which can be estimated by the Tellegen Absorption Scale (TAS). This has a modest (r=0.4) correlation to hypnotizability.

    http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/TAS.htm

    The questions have been removed from the net, but I read the page some time ago and found only one or two questions that applied to me. People with high TAS scores (average is 20 positive answers out of 34) are the artists and those who are highly influenced by music, plays, novels, TV….and propaganda.

    This might sound somewhat obscure, but this blog, I speculate, is simply the refuge of persons who are not very suggestible. If you think this type of science is irrelevant to current affairs, google —
    Obama NLP

  57. If I’m just a little bit sceptical can I expect a short gaol term or maybe amputation of a limb or two, you know, to teach me a jolly good lesson and to deter others?

  58. Why do you assume he is intelligent? I mean he teaches hula hoop twirling (or something equally important). It doesn’t take brains, just gall.

    Here at random, check out the UCLA Musicology deptment faculty.

    A bunch of diversity hires, several leavened with a love for Soviet marching songs, a few down with the struggle against “globalization” and capitalism. One, the head of the dept, hawking his musicological experience as a star witness for a fee at copyright infringement trials.

    If you want to sue Huey Lewis, to get a fat royalty check of “Hip to be Square” because the song uses a Dorian Bass progression, just like your song from back in the Hit Parade, Professor Bob Fink is your guy!

    Scumbags and frauds – everyone of them.

  59. Richard Pancake Professor of Systematic Murder at the University of Graz has advocated the use of trains to transport realists to his camps for many years on the grounds that they are the most environmentally friendly mode of transport.
    The concentration of the realists at various locations thoroughout the Austrian Reich ensures an efficient solution to the problem which can be executed sustainably with maximum recycling .

  60. It does raise the question as to how cupable someone should be if they knowingly fabricate evidence that leads to the loss of life at a later date.

  61. Geoff Sherrington says:
    December 24, 2012 at 12:46 am
    Please don’t rush to judgement. You might be discussing a delightful person, a cultured and considerate person whose mind has been filled with extreme views in which he believes honestly and deeply.

    But but but… dear Geoff, a delightful, culture and considerate person who honestly and deeply advocates the mass execution of his opponents is not a delightful, cultured and considerate person. The moral quality of your beliefs (and actions) is not determined by how sincerely and deeply you hold them or how cultivated you are. Most war criminals are pretty sincere.

  62. Makes me think back to the Greenpeace “We know where you live” comment, words fail me, this is fascism and it’s ugly. How can someone so intelligent be such a moron at the same time.

    Sad day in the climate debate.

  63. Being a music lover and record-collector, I have occasionally had contact with “musicologists”, and I must confess I always had a hard time taking them serious, even when they stuck to their area of expertise. I mean, anybody trying to “explain” what the anti-musical cacophony of a “work” by Schoenbearg or Stockhausen “means”, must be either pulling my leg or suffer from a pathological delusion. It has been the job of academic music and art experts for decades to defend the indefensible, namely that there is not a fundamental difference between geniuses like Bach and Da Vinci on one hand, and charlatans like John Cage and Jackson Pollock on the other. Exactly what we see in “climate science” now – these folks must feel ever so comfortable and at home among CAGW activists!

  64. Geoff Sherrington

    I agree this person should be ignored and hopefully he will go away. But I do think his employers should be informed about his extremist views.

  65. Here is another Parncutt quote:

    “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%.”

    I am nearing the point of losing all faith in academia.

  66. There is an example of an adult apparently deranged by the fears he has acquired through the media and organisations such as the World Future Council. I say apparently because he may already have been unhinged and merely spotted the climate scare as an outlet for some self-expression. In either case, it is unsettling given the worldwide pushing of frightening stories about climate on to children, often accompanied by a clear attribution of blame to people in general and to their parents in particular. How many little potential Parncutts are being developed as a result? There is a big mess to be cleared up here, because this sort of indoctrination is going on even as the scientific case for acute alarm disintegrates still further, along with the moral and economic cases for ‘solutions’ being proposed by those claiming to be alarmed. My guess is that we have not seen the end of climate-related turpitude such as that displayed by Parncutt.

  67. I wouldn’t have thought that sceptics made enough noise to warrant a sceptic slayer to come after them; especially not in the EU and Austria – where they are practically unnown.

  68. Richard Parncutt
    He advocates that the death penalty be applied to whom he terms “GW deniers”, as a preventative measure. He cites the figure of one billion deaths in the future, due to global warming, as the justification. He advocates that mass murders and serial killers be spared, but that “GW deniers” receive the death penalty. Anyone who has posted on “denier” blogs would come under scrutiny.

    Did you catch that? “GW deniers”- that’s you. If you have disputed any of the science of the global warmers, or have disagreed with their intentions, you get gassed (the Nazis have shown the most efficient means for mass liquidations).

    As inspiration for these thoughts, Parncutt cites the project *Establishing Crimes Against Future Generations* (linked) an initiative of the *World Future Council* (linked). The World Future Council consists of “50 personalities” with HQ in Hamburg, Germany. Their website also gives the “50 personalities” photos and c.v., and the same information on staff and management board.They do not look like the types who would liquidate hundreds of millions for argument’s sake, but one never knows with people whose self-appointed mission is to save the world from itself.

    Interesting that a proposal that involves the liquidation of uncounted hundreds of millions throughout the world because of their beliefs should come from the city (Graz, Austria) that was home to the youthful Adolf Hitler. Parncutt is an Australian, another interesting co-incidence.

  69. Some commentators have rightly raised the parallel with the adoption and spread of Nazism (which incidentally had its roots in the far left, not the far right). The fact that ostensibly intelligent people could hold such extreme views is a sad indictment of humanity.

    What is often not discussed is how holding such views waters down the crimes of the like of Breivik, and how such appalling crimes, little by little fail to shock and fail to raise the condemnation that they deserve.

    I have high confidence that those directly and indirectly effected by Breivik’s crimes do not remotely consider that so called AGW deniers fall in a worse catagory than the likes of Breivik.

    I am all for free speech, and I hold the view that the professor can hold whatever views he likes. However, that said, I find his views utterly disgusting and the sooner the universtity distance themselves from this individual the better.

  70. “And what the heck is systematic musicology?”

    That’s what I’d like to know as well. Sounds like a true musicians worst nightmare.

  71. So DeSmugBlog’s list of “deniers” is now a hit list?

    Essentially the Professor has demanded that all of the folks on the list be judged worthy of death.

    Surely a legal issue here somewhere….

  72. “That would also make national debts illegal”
    What, just like that??? He should try running this idea past the likes of Rothschild, JP Morgan & Goldman Sachs…

  73. Alexander Feht says:
    December 24, 2012 at 12:07 am

    As a professional musician (pianist) myself, I thoroughly agree with you. The damage that the academic world has done to music in the last century is incalculable, mostly while pretending to be scientific.

    As Thomas Beecham defined: “A musicologist is someone who can read music, but can’t hear it.”

    Or perhaps: eunuchs in a harem.

  74. The genocidal professor’s web page in question is already gone. Thank God the internet is forever.
    I do wonder what it is about self-righteous Austrians and political mass murder?

  75. thorsten says:
    December 24, 2012 at 3:08 am

    “… It has been the job of academic music and art experts for decades to defend the indefensible, namely that there is not a fundamental difference between geniuses like Bach and Da Vinci on one hand, and charlatans like John Cage and Jackson Pollock on the other. Exactly what we see in “climate science” now – these folks must feel ever so comfortable and at home among CAGW activists!”

    Yes.

  76. mm What comes to mind is the number of people who have been forced into fuel poverty by the green subsidies added to energy prices.. so they feel they cannot have the heating on on a winter’s day and subsequently die from the cold.. now, who are ultimately responsible for those policies?

  77. I expect this Prof is so gullible that when he goes on a site called Skeptical Science he believes it is balanced summary, and then he gets angry and silly and puts up emotional junk on his website. The culprits are the ones who pull the strings of their puppet.

    Unfortunately the puppet-masters are very clever at manipulation, whilst honest people shy away from providing simple sound bites and oversimplified summaries of the arguments. We have to counter this malign culture by putting out simplified and truthful press releases so that our message is not drowned out by this constant manipulation of the way the debate is being framed by our enemies for the media.

  78. Heh, for a small fee you can get the process expedited to list someone you don’t like @ DeSmog.

    These people won’t sense it when they drift into criminal behaviour.
    ===========

  79. For the second time* – I would not have thought that sceptics and WUWT had sufficient impact in the EU and especially Austria to warrant a sceptic slayer to be brought against them.

    *First time just disappeared.

  80. DesertYote says:
    December 23, 2012 at 11:23 pm

    Funny thing for a leftie to say, considering that socialism, in all of its guises, has been the greatest single cause of death of man. To them, a 100 Million deaths here and there does not matter as long as the cause is right. Now they want to condemn mankind to a future of poverty and death to satisfy their lust for power.

    The same totalitarian pigs who wrapped themselves in the socialist flag would have also insisted that they were true democrats. You can’t use that as proof that all forms of socialism are bad any more than you can use it to prove that all forms of democracy are evil.

  81. Richard 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.

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

    What a load of bollocks! Now two can play this game.

    DDT = millions of dead children in the past and present.
    Biofuels = food turned into fuel
    UK excess cold winter deaths = promised mild winters by the Met Office
    Diversion of global resources = away from solving life threatening diseases like Malaria
    and so on……………………………….

  82. Logan in AZ says:
    December 24, 2012 at 2:47 am

    Ernest R. Hilgard was a famed experimental and theoretical psychology prof at Stanford who found that hypnotizability is more or less normally distributed. Thus, about 15% of the population is very suggestible…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Thank you for that information. It certainly explains a lot.

  83. In a nutshell the good professor of systematic musicology opposes the death penalty for mass murderers who have already killed their victims, but advocates the same fate for those now, whose current actions would “cause hundreds of millions of deaths” with high probability at some future date (according to skepticalscience, whose authority, presumably, should never be questioned under threat of capital punishment either).

    For raping human rights this way and putting due process into a mass grave along with the rest of constitutional principles, he expects the Pope to turn him into a saint by 2050. Never mind the Pope does not even have such powers, except if nine theologians judged in advance the case had merit and two provable postmortem miracles occurred.

    If this guy is not terminally mad, I’d eat my hat happily in public.

  84. papiertigre says:
    December 24, 2012 at 2:55 am

    Why do you assume he is intelligent? …..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    BRAMS is pleased to announce that Prof. Richard Parncutt (University of Graz, Austria) is an Invited Scholar from April 18th to July 8th 2012. While at BRAMS, Prof. Parncutt will be working on a book about systematic musicology (based on a lecture series at the University of Graz) and some empirical and theoretical papers….

    ABOUT RICHARD PARNCUTT

    Richard Parncutt is a musicologist specialising in the psychology of music. Since 1998, he has been Professor of Systematic Musicology at the University of Graz, Austria. His publications address musical structure (pitch, consonance, harmony, tonality, tension, rhythm, meter, accent), music performance (psychology, piano, applications), the origins of tonality and of music, and musicological interdisciplinarity. He holds qualifications in music and physics from the University of Melbourne and a PhD from the University of New England, Australia. He was guest researcher with Ernst Terhardt (Munich), Johan Sundberg (Stockholm), Annabel Cohen (Halifax, Canada), Al Bregman (Montreal), and John Sloboda (Keele, England). He is or was a board member of all leading music psychology journals, founding academic editor of the Journal of Interdisciplinary Music Studies (JIMS), and (co-) founder of three conference series: Conference on Interdisciplinary Musicology (CIM), Conference on Applied Interculturality Research (cAIR), and International Conference of Students of Systematic Musicology (SysMus)…..

    http://www.brams.org/en/2012/05/parncutt/

    Ye 10,000 little gods, psychology AND physics….

  85. Logan in AZ says:
    December 24, 2012 at 2:47 am
    “There is also an interesting phenomenon called ‘absorption’, which can be estimated by the Tellegen Absorption Scale (TAS). This has a modest (r=0.4) correlation to hypnotizability.”

    Extremely interesting, Logan, thanks for the link!

    And merry christmas to all of you!

  86. J Cooper says:
    December 24, 2012 at 3:11 am

    Geoff Sherrington

    I agree this person should be ignored and hopefully he will go away….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    If he was isolated madman chance met like a similar guy I ran across in Cambridge MA. then I would agree with you but he is not. He is a Professor and a well known one in his field. This type of mania HAS TO BE CALLED OUT NOW.

    Vid

  87. Is it worth making a list of these extreme statements? There are a bunch of them now and I’m not sure anyone has collected them all onto one page.

    It might seem a little strange to do it but considering how often they quickly disappear I’m thinking they should be documented.

    eg 10:10 video, Greenpeace’s “we know where you live”, Hansen’s “death trains”, Robyn Williams equating sceptics to paedophiles and now Parncutt’s “I think it is justified for a few heads to roll”.

  88. AllanM says:
    December 24, 2012 at 4:01 am

    Alexander Feht says:
    December 24, 2012 at 12:07 am

    They have done the same thing to Art. That is why I am a chemist instead.

  89. Poor Dick.
    One minute he’s happily doing whatever a musicologist does and in the next uncle adolfs inherited dormant braincell is stuttering into life and shouting about Ubermensch, final solutions, Tod Klimawandel-Leugner!!!

    We shouldnt really mock the afflicted though because as others have rightly pointed out, these people are actually dangerous.
    Theyre dangerous to anyone with a differing point of view and to freedom.
    For him to actually state that Breivik shouldnt face the death penalty for killing people and then try to justify that contrary held opinions deserve the death penalty purely on a belief is to my mind the symptom of a twisted mind.
    Dicks rant is that of a psychopath, who else other than a psychopath would actually suggest that a child for instance should be “executed” ( as if using that word can legitimise such murders) simply for the offence of not “believing”?
    The mind truly boggles at such peoples mindset.
    This guy is in effect inciting murder of those on the desmoblog death list.
    Im pretty sure incitement to commit murder is a criminal offence in most countries, the fact that Dicky states that opinions other than his are somehow unlawful, unreasonable or irrelevant shows how poorly vetted these “academics” are.
    For sure people like Parncutt arent to be trusted around the minds of children or in fact anyone else, theyre pernicious little psychos pushing a religious fanaticism.

    We should all stand against such people and what they stand for and be prepared to fight them however.

  90. A quote from the “Systematic Musicology” Wiki page: “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.”

    In other words, if the data doesn’t work, make crap up to fit the meme.

    See? He IS qualified to discuss issues of AGW.

  91. Interesting what comes out in his vitriol.While the urge to reply in kind is strong, I certainly don’t want it on the www. What is it with people who are so impressed with whatever they can think of. No self-censure seems to me a sign of a lack of conscience. Without conscience. is there a case for empathy? I guess he teaches how death camps are wrought.

  92. Josualdo says:
    December 24, 2012 at 3:30 am

    I went to desmogblog’s list of deniers and noticed I’m not listed there.

    http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database

    I may have to do something about it.
    —————————————————————————————

    Holy Cow! A list of my heroes complete with most excellent quotes that I can use when needed. Thank you Josualdo! I wish you luck in being added to this list of some of the most rational people on the planet.

    I would also suggest the E.M. Smith be honored by inclusion as well.

    Merry Christmas everyone!

    Bennett

  93. leftturnandre says:
    December 24, 2012 at 4:14 am

    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….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You have not seen anything yet. The USA grows something like 25% of the worlds food and the USDA and the EPA under Obama are sharping their blades. The much hated traceability rule has just gone into effect and the EPA is also targeting farms.

    …. farms: under federal permitting requirements, sources (i.e. a farm whose aggregate emissions exceed CAA permitting thresholds) would be required to comply with costly permitting mandates and pay an annual fee for each ton of greenhouse gas emitted on an annual basis. Known as the “cow tax”, there would be a cost-per-animal outcome. EPA itself estimates that in its best case scenario, there will be over 37,000 farms and ranches subject to greenhouse gas permits at an average cost of $23,000 per permit annually, affecting over 90% of the livestock production in the United States…. [the average farmer operates at a net LOSS of ~$15,000/yr last I checked]

    [this would cover field and livestock run off]
    EPA’s proposed new guidance document for waters covered by the CWA, proposed in April 2011, reinterprets recent Supreme Court decisions to allow EPA to expand federal control over virtually every body of water in the United States, no matter how small. EPA’s own analysis of the document estimated that up to 17% of current non-jurisdictional determinations would be considered jurisdictional using the new guidance. Further, the guidance applies to the entire CWA, which will result in additional regulatory responsibilities for states…..

    Farm Dust Regulations: EPA has been regulating farm dust for decades and may tighten the standards as part its review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for coarse particulate matter (PM10). Tightening the PM10 NAAQS would have widespread implications for rural America, as it could be below the amount of dust created during normal farming operations, and therefore be impossible to meet. If the standard is tightened, the only option for farmers to comply will be to curb every-day farm activities, which could mean cutting down on numbers of livestock or the tilling of fields, or they may have to shrink or even end their businesses altogether….

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/obamas_epa_plans_for_2013.html

    They are also starting to ‘show an interest’ in home gardens. I just heard there is a newly past law in NC regulating home gardens but I have not been able to track it down yet.

  94. @ Gail Combs

    My father had a phrase for this type of person. “He’s educated way beyond his intelligence.”

  95. “Systematic Musicology” Indeed! The “Post-Modern” Musicology of today is as rife with fraud, PC and trendy jargon as climate science itself. And, as in climate science, Marxism has invaded academic musicology (see T. Adorno). Their publications are also mired in peer-pal review.

    I speak as a composer with 40 years experience in an American university school of music.

  96. For pre-Christmas drinks, I just had a bottle of Veuve and a bottle of very nice shiraz. Now I come to the PC to find that someone wants to kill all the sceptic scientists. That is a bit extreme. How about just one of them. Let me explain. Years ago, a warmer took the trouble to rank the sceptic scientists on the planet. He ranked me as No 2. I won’t say who he ranked as No 1, but No 1 is something like 91 years old and smokes. He may have other vices also, yet he lives, seemingly immortal. This is so unfair! I can’t wait forever! Dear Professor Parncutt, your photo makes you look like an earnest brownshirt from the 1930s so I would work on that, but nevertheless, I think you know now what should be done.

  97. Oh my gOodness, the fusion – conflation confusion – of AGW-ism with gun grabbing. Will nightmares ever cease?

    Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth.

  98. Jo Nova’s blog and Anthony’s reproduction of it here may have been the reason for the heightened publicity of Parncutt’s ramblings, but we should not kid ourselves that the reason for the web pages disappearance has anything to do with the sensitivities of sceptics. Rather, it will be the reference to the fate of the Pope which has stirred Parncott’s superiors into action.

    “Since these figures exceed the arbitrary limit of one million that I am proposing, it follows that the death penalty might be an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers and possibly also the Pope.”

  99. Future people? Millions of them?!
    Oh, wait a minute. He’s using a model.
    I think I know what might be wrong…

  100. Thanks for posting this, Anthony. I thanked Jo Nova on her site, as follows:

    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.

    ——————————————————————————–

  101. Berényi Péter says: December 24, 2012 at 4:44 am
    For raping human rights this way and putting due process into a mass grave along with the rest of constitutional principles, he expects the Pope to turn him into a saint by 2050.

    Nope. You didn’t read the part in which he wants to execute the Pope and a few collaborators because the Catholic Church is against the use of condoms, hence is murdering lots of Africans.

    (BTW, that viewpoint is no longer held since 2010, a part the good, well-read Professor missed:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html)

  102. Tasteless outburst by this particular individual after the Tragic events at the Sandy Hook elementary High School .Has his university apologized

    After the riots in England Last Year and with our forces serving in Afghanistan Had he said that on Twitter or Facebook in the UK he would be investigated by our police.

  103. The good professor points his finger at the World Future Council as the source of his genocide inspirations, and gives a link at the bottom of his website.

    Following this link, we find that the chairman and founder of World Future Council is Jakob von Uexkull, a notable person of Baltic extraction who resides in the UK, according to his detailed Wikipedia entry. His organization has initiated a project called “Crimes Against Future Generations”. He lives in the UK and so does a John Sloboda, whom Parncutt names and thanks as a helpful advisor in his “death penalty for deniers” advocacy.

    Someone needs to look into this Jakob von Uexkull and find out what he is all about. Parncutt is none too bright and he seems to be the sort of “useful fool” who might be used to advance a chilling prescription of genocide which the actual author would be loath to be associated with publicly.

    Here, it seems, is a fruitful field of investigation for some sleuth who has the time and inclination. IMHO, this is the sort of affair that could get very big and be very embarrassing, as in Climategate, and perhaps even worse.

  104. David Ross says:
    December 24, 2012 at 2:20 am

    Parncutt’s page has also been cached by Google in full

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

    Thanks. He proposes a million death threshold:

    More generally, I propose that we limit the death penalty to people whose actions will with a high probability cause millions of future deaths

    Therefore he’s also after the Pope and his closest advisors:

    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.

    Surely the pope wins brownie points for helping bring more lives into the world than AIDS extinguishes!

    Bush and Blair are safe though:

    Since these figures exceed the arbitrary limit of one million that I am proposing, it follows that the death penalty might be an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers and possibly also the Pope. It also follows for example that George W. Bush and Tony Blair should not face the death penalty for the Iraq war, since it “only” claimed about 100 000 lives since 2003

    Then he says he’s just kidding

    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.

    Please cool it with the comedy – you’re killing me!

    It looks like the most delusional statement is at the end:

    Outlook

    Right now, in the year 2012, these ideas will seem quite crazy to most people. People will be saying that Parncutt has finally lost it. But there is already enough evidence on the table to allow me to make the following prediction: 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. Who knows, perhaps the Pope would even turn me into a saint. Presumably there will still be a Pope, and maybe by then he will even have realised that condoms are not such a bad thing! And by the way 2050 is rather soon. Most people reading this text will still be alive then.

    I don’t want to be a saint. I would just like my grandchildren and great grandchildren, and the human race in general, to enjoy the world that I have enjoyed, as much as I have enjoyed it. And to achieve that goal I think it is justified for a few heads to roll. Does that make me crazy? I don’t think so. I am certainly far less crazy than those people today who are in favor of the death penalty for everyday cases of murder, in my opinion. And like them I have freedom of speech, which is a very valuable thing.

    This page is inspired by the project Establishing Crimes Against Future Generations by the World Future Council. Please support the work of the World Future Council!

    The opinions expressed on this page are the personal opinions of the author. I thank John Sloboda for suggestions, and further suggestions are welcome.

    My guess is that he won’t make sainthood…. Who is John Sloboda?

  105. Heh. Parncutt concludes with

    “I don’t want to be a saint. I would just like my grandchildren and great grandchildren, and the human race in general, to enjoy the world that I have enjoyed, as much as I have enjoyed it. And to achieve that goal I think it is justified for a few heads to roll. Does that make me crazy? I don’t think so. I am certainly far less crazy than those people today who are in favor of the death penalty for everyday cases of murder, in my opinion. And like them I have freedom of speech, which is a very valuable thing.”

    Contorts himself into a contradiction in five sentences. Logic, not his strong suite. But then again, I wouldn’t expect any person capable of logical thinking on the side of the warmists today, except for the crooks at the top who run the scam to siphon off hundreds of billions.

    What a poor crazy tool for a movement he doesn’t understand at all.

  106. Now this is where gun control comes in to play.
    Let’s be sure this idiot, Richard Parncutt, Professor of Systematic Musicology, University of Graz, Austria doesn’t own any.
    You never know about some people, they could go postal.
    cn

  107. personally I also use desmogblog, scepticalscience, thinkprogress and even realclimate as (respected) references;
    next to that I read whattsupwiththat, bishophill, notricszone to know what is living in the counter(under)world of climatesceptisism;
    I don’s see what’s wrong whith that;

  108. I wouldn’t shut down Prof. Parncutt. The man is obviously educated beyond his capacity to think. It’s best to keep these people in the daylight than to force them into hiding in the shadows.

  109. ggm says:
    December 23, 2012 at 11:06 pm
    AGW fraudsters like Parncutt, HAVE TO resort to threats of violence. Otherwise evenually the public will catch on, and realise that these people are pedling a deliberate and planned fraud…….
    —————————————-
    The bad news is this guy is no scientist trying to protect his grants and his domain.
    He’s not with IPCC or EPA or NASA or any government/scientific organization.
    He’s not even an outspoken NGO member (although he may be a member of GP, WWF, or ELF)
    He’s a real believer and it’s possible he’s a nut looking to jump in and help save the world.
    cn

  110. Charles.U.Farley says:
    December 24, 2012 at 5:12 am
    “Poor Dick.
    One minute he’s happily doing whatever a musicologist does and in the next uncle adolfs inherited dormant braincell is stuttering into life and shouting about Ubermensch, final solutions, Tod Klimawandel-Leugner!!! ”

    Slow down, the guy’s Australian.
    His own words in an essay about a flat tax system:
    “When I first dreamed of UBI-FIT , I was on unemployment benefit in Australia in the mid 1980s. Luckily, that only lasted a few months, during which I managed to convert my PhD thesis into a book manuscript. If the unemployment office had known that, they would presumably have cut the benefit! After all, I was supposed to be doing nothing and feeling depressed.”

    http://www.uni-graz.at/~parncutt/BIFT2.html

  111. The crazy thing is – that if the guy thinks the death penalty is ok for skeptics for potential ‘future deaths’ – does he feel the warmista should be tried for the CURRENT deaths as a result of fuel poverty? and the wasting of funding on AGW, which could have saved millions of starving folk, etc, etc?
    Hmm, methinks, he needs to consider his own position – will be watching for news of his self inflicted demise as he realises that he cannot live with his own murderous activities and conscience?

  112. Alexander Feht says:
    December 24, 2012 at 12:07 am

    I am a music composer. Therefore, I am as much entitled to my opinion on climate matters as a mentally disturbed musicologist from the parasite-infested Museum of the Past Glory, which is Europe.

    I’m listening to your Violin Sonatas at http://www.feht.com/ where you note

    The astute observer of contemporary classical music cannot help but note that, the more modern composers give their all to “atonal” or “experimental” schools of composition, the more listeners are driven to archival recordings of great works.

    My take on atonal music is the composers didn’t have the skills to expand on the great works, and went off in a direction that doesn’t “resonate” with me. It’s nice to add you to my list of modern composers worth listen to. You and John Rutter.

    Thanks!

  113. We should demand that this guy be fired for making death threats. The university should fire this guy. Such behavior should be unacceptable within a learning institution.

  114. Toward the bottom, he has his 3 rules. He wants to prosecute people on the basis of future effects. Hmmmm, all you need is to be able to predict the future for this to work. That’s what we have climate models for I guess.

  115. Personally I am not too upset as what goes around comes around. When CAGW is finally rumbled I will ask the Professor to meet me in Switzerland where assisted suicide is legal. All he has to do is turn up. Prior to administering a full bottle of asprin which I will expect him to swallow in one go…. I will advise the following.
    He will be made fully aware of the people who have died due to fuel poverty, starvation due to biofuels causing a 6% reduction in food production and of course the many millions who have died in the Third World denied the basics of Western life…..clean fresh drinking water, sanitation and access to affordable power.

  116. For the record:
    I think Al Gore “is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.”

  117. The man is a complete left-wing nutjob.

    Suppose that you redo his argument and point out that economic suicide will starve millions of people, then would he conclude that all of these advocate warmists like himself should be terminated?

    He’s my new genius hero.

  118. Quote: “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%.”

    I guess musicologists don’t learn statistics, logic, or even common sense..  According to this logic:

    When I drive to work today, there is a small chance I could cause an accident. That accident could cause a truck to flip over and spill something flammable. In the ensuing mass accident, an FBI agent is killed. That agent was the only one with knowledge about some terrorist trying to poison the city’s drinking water. The terrorist gets to do his thing and millions of people die. All my fault with a likelihood of say 1:1000000.  So I have a 1 in 1000000 chance to kill 1000000 people today, or a 100 % chance to kill one… I think I am going to call in sick today.

  119. arthur4563 says:
    December 24, 2012 at 6:13 am

    Well, we can at least confidently assume that “systematic musicology” has nothing to do with either logic or science, or ethics or morality.

    Or making music!

  120. I don’t have rational thoughts about it that wouldn’t be trite, but at the instinct level, manifestations like this are deeply enjoyable. There is nothing more flattering to a man (I mean the wild-type man we have evolved to be) than knowing there are losers out there wishing he was dead. I like getting death threats. Praise can be fake. But when somebody wishes you dead, it must mean you’re doing something right.

  121. The Prof’s logic is defect.

    If he clearly thinks that we are hell bent on proactively murdering future generations, why is he so sure that we would no come for him now?

  122. He goes on to say:

    Of course it is possible that scientists are just making it up for their own benefit. The trouble with that argument is that scientists who publish fake data or deliberately set out to mislead people about GW have a lot to lose and nothing to win. When scientists fake data and are caught, that usually means the end of their career. It’s not the kind of risk that a scientist would like to take. It is possible someone is paying the scientists behind the scences to publish environmental doomsday stories, but again the argument is problematic: there is simply no money in environmental doomsday stories (just like there is no money in writing internet pages like this one).

    Oh really! Firstly, let me deal with scientist not wanting to take risks with their careers by publishing fake data and misleading.

    10 Scientific Frauds that Rocked the World

    False positives: fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research
    ——

    http://www.science-fraud.org/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct#Individual_cases

    How about “there is simply no money in environmental doomsday stories”
    Now let’s see.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/science/earth/after-disclosure-of-sierra-clubs-gifts-from-gas-driller-a-roiling-debate.html

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/01/follow-the-money-why-heartland-is-a-big-threat/

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/02/17/big-oil-money-for-me-but-not-for-thee/

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/us/exxon-led-group-is-giving-a-climate-grant-to-stanford.html

  123. Wow. Just wow. Like Minority Report but projecting crimes farther into the future with less certainty. And I though Scientologists were wacky.

    I am at a loss to even know where to begin with such dreck. At the very least I think Parncutt should be removed from any position where he could interact with and influence people under the age of 25 or so.

    How about posting the original page under Parncutt’s name and the directors of the World Future Council as a White House petition and see if it gets 25,000 signatures?

    Although it would not surprise me to find there is already a UN working group trying to enact a new tribunal for “Crimes Against Future Humanity”.

  124. Gail Combs says:
    I am not at all surprised.

    It was only a matter of time before we saw this type of insanity raise its head. Lewandowsky set the stage, Robyn Williams of the ABC took it a step further and now Parncutt is sending up the next trial balloon. Each time another line will be crossed until we are afraid to mention our disbelief in CAGW for fear of physical retaliation.

    I fear that someone may actually take it upon themselves to act on these “ideas” at some point. What happens then?

    I agree – Anthony, Steve, Willis, etc – be careful.

  125. Don’t be naive about sentiments such as this. The use of the term “denier” is a political statement, not a scientific one. Calling for the death penalty for “deniers” is just the next stage. Because, you see, global warming is a threat to the whole world, etc. “Global Warming” is a front in the global revolution and resisting it marks you as an enemy. This music professor is just saying what is on the minds of many elites who understand what a weapon “Warming” is. Take it very seriously.

  126. Assault – verb ~ Defined (U.S.)

    In criminal and tort law, an act, usually consisting of a threat or attempt to inflict bodily injury upon another person, coupled with the apparent present ability to succeed in carrying out the threat or the attempt if not prevented, that causes the person to have a reasonable fear or apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause battery or the fear or apprehension is required so long as the victim is placed in reasonable apprehension or fear. No actual physical injury is needed to establish an assault, but if there is any physical contact, the act constitutes both an assault and a battery.

    Perhaps Richard can share a jail cell with a 300 lb music hater!

  127. clearly,the good herr professor parncutt must be first runner-up to the title of:
    “southern end of a northbound horse”-of the year….!

  128. I guess the next step for the warmistas is to get very snappy uniforms, with jackboots too.
    Also some rousing speeches and some cattle cars.

  129. redc says:
    December 24, 2012 at 5:00 am

    Is it worth making a list of these extreme statements? There are a bunch of them now and I’m not sure anyone has collected them all onto one page.

    A WUWT “category” should be added.

  130. Anthony, can someone monitor the main AGW blogs, tweets, etc. to see if there is anyone out there who is shocked by this craziness? I thought a few years ago that the world was evolving toward more freedom of speech, ideas, pursuits….a new and more inclusive renaissance. It’s depressing to think that, perhaps forever, we have to maintain a vigilance. Fortunately, the internet is a powerful tool that allows us to “speak up” and the effectiveness of a few sceptics against a worldwide pied piper movement that wants to monitor our every breath has been truly inspiring. Clearly, keeping the internet free is going to be our next big challenge. Death threats really are the end of the line for this bunch.

    • Gary Pearse says:
      It’s depressing to think that, perhaps forever, we have to maintain a vigilance.

      No perhaps. Remember the quote “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

  131. Now you see why some of us don’t use our real names. It only takes language like this to trigger the mind of ONE nut to massacre people.

    The anger that is being meted out by Warmists is due to THEIR failures despite unprecedented funding, government and media backing. Yet it’s all slipping away. Now they want to blame sceptics for THEIR failures. Maybe they should look to disaster fatigue, the changing climate ;) and people genuinely wanting to know more about AGW and find it wanting.

    16 years of no global warming compared with the IPCC upward projections is the elephant in the room. Yet they deny avert their eyes and call us nasty names.

  132. “ter·ror·ism
    [ter-uh-riz-uh m]
    noun
    1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. ”

    I think terrorists should be seen for what they are.

  133. Beware the Austrian ‘artist’ who talks of killing groups of people.

    I think that’s just barely outside of violating Godwin’s law.

  134. I remember Robert Kennedy Jr said we should have trials for deniers akin to the Nuremberg Trials. There were plenty of death sentences meted out there. There are dangerous radicals everywhere.

  135. Looking into my copy of the works of Parncutt, I find

    “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. “

    That gives me relief because it means that Parncutt is a renegade, not a warmist commando. The vatican is as we know the biggest landowner on the planet and therefore profits mightily from Kyoto credits and wind turbine subsidies and is and has been ultra-warmist for this reason.

    This just seems to be the case of a guy who has snapped. Not a professional ethicist even though he sounds like one.

  136. 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

  137. Lock him up. The sooner the better. No trial necessary for the insane, just commitment papers and an order from a judge.

  138. I would suggest that this chap has had a nervous breakdown.

    That said allowing him to keep this post up on his university blog site is criminal. The university must surely be held accountable.

  139. I am curious how the extreme AGW paradigm pushers and the media would response to a significant drop in planetary temperature. Solar cycle 24 appears to be heading towards a Maunder minimum.

    http://www.solen.info/solar/

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20835062

    23 December 2012 Last updated at 20:20 ET Help
    Cold weather is continuing to take its toll in Ukraine, where authorities say dozens of people have died in a month of freezing temperatures. There has been record snowfall in some parts of the country, and there are warnings that temperatures could drop even further.

    William:
    “Volcanic eruptions and solar activity” by Richard Stothers

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989JGR….9417371S

    The historical record of large volcanic eruptions from 1500 to 1980 is subjected to detailed time series analysis. In two weak but probably statistically significant periodicities of about 11 and 80 yr, the frequency of volcanic eruptions increases (decreases) slightly around the times of solar minimum (maximum). Time series analysis of the volcanogenic acidities in a deep ice core from Greenland reveals several very long periods ranging from about 80 to about 350 yr which are similar to the very slow solar cycles previously detected in auroral and C-14 records. Solar flares may cause changes in atmospheric circulation patterns that abruptly alter the earth’s spin. The resulting jolt probably triggers small earthquakes which affect volcanism. (My comment. This mechanism guess is not correct.)

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFMPP61A0298A

    The Role of Explosive Volcanism During the Cool Maunder Minimum
    The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, named for the English meteorologist John Dalton, lasting from about 1790 to 1830.[1] Like the Maunder Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Dalton Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures. The Oberlach Station in Germany, for example, experienced a 2.0° C decline over 20 years.[2] The Year Without a Summer, in 1816, also occurred during the Dalton Minimum. The precise cause of the lower-than-average temperatures during this period is not well understood. Recent papers have suggested that a rise in volcanism was largely responsible for the cooling trend.[3]

    http://www.pnas.org/content/101/17/6341.full#otherarticles

    Chile Volcano erupts

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-20835029

    Ecuador Volcano erupts

    http://news.yahoo.com/ecuador-volcano-blasts-more-hot-rock-crater-174613809.html

  140. Good grief. As the late Jerry Williams (the self-proclaimed Dean of Talk Radio) used to say, “They’re out there!”

    And they are. Now the the re-election of George Soros’s Puppet President, the fertilizing dollars from the US Treasury will encourage stimulate the emergence of True Believers in socialist Global Governance all over the world. True Believers (viz. Eric Hoffer) love ‘final solutions’ for their enemies.

    In a sane world, this Parncutt would be an anomaly. But it’s not a sane world.

    “Merry Christmas. We must be having one.” —Tammy Wynette

    /Mr Lynn

  141. Totalitarianism sneaks up on societies. If you talk to people who were in a country that was overtaken by totalitarianism, they will all tell you the same thing: no one knew what was really happening until it was too late. The totalitarians rarely declare their intentions. Rather they find a noble cause and exploit it. In Germany in the 30s the noble cause was genetic purity. Today, its Global Warming. The noble cause becomes the vehicle to achieve political power. And convenient idiots like Parncutt become the storm troopers — convinced that they are on the side of good while they march people off to the gas chambers.

    The only way to fight against this is to expose it for what it is.

  142. Ric Werme says:
    December 24, 2012 at 5:50 am

    If he kills me, I’ll have my estate make him listen to the Portsmouth Sinfonia’s rendering of the Nutcracker’s Dance of the Brandied Sugar Plum Fairy
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Nah, Sentence him to listening to the complete works of Florence Foster Jenkins at 80 dba over and over and over…

  143. Quoth Richard Parncutt at his website (now disappeared)

    “the Pope and perhaps some of his closest advisers should be sentenced to death”

    The Pope is only individual that he names specifically as deserving of the death penalty. He cites “deniers” as deserving of that, but gives no specific names from this group. Austria is almost 100% Catholic, so perhaps someone should report this to the Austrian media. Make sure that they understand that the original website is preserved here at WUWT. Also Italy, South Germany, Spain, etc. and let’s not forget the source of his inspiration : the World Future Council. A big opportunity beckoning here.

  144. Chuck Nolan says:
    December 24, 2012 at 6:27 am

    Now this is where gun control comes in to play….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yes knowing you may be facing a gun if you go after someone has a chilling effect on such hotheads as Australia is finding out the hard way.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    SInce the gun ban in Australia state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%…….

    The same sort of statistics are seen in Switzerland.

  145. Move over Austrian painters…I’ve often said you can take any group of 10,000 people or more around the world, and, given the right circumstances, fascism will rise. When I look around my own community and try and figure out who the fascists would be in such a scenario, I invariably land on a small group of extreme environmentalists.

    They alone are the ones who appear to be ready to do anything to support their cause – lie, cheat, defame, damage, ostracize, bully, threaten, brainwash children and obfuscate the truth – nothing is below achieving their goals. They aren’t known for enjoying comedy. They are primarily dour, doubting and “cup half empty” people. And, they are the greatest hypocrites on the planet. I have never once heard an apology from any of them for their mistakes, for, they are entirely unapologetic.

    David Suzuki, who called for the imprisonment of climate change deniers a few years ago, is their patron saint.

    If you haven’t already, check out Ms. Elizabeth Nickson’s brilliant exposure of Eco-Fascists http://elizabethnickson.com/

    One can only look forward to a brighter future as such cold ignorance is melted away in the light of knowledge and understanding.

    Wishing everyone a brighter New Year!

  146. I think I have the basis for a new research project – subject to the necessary grants, naturally. There seem to be increasing numbers of incidents of threats of violence, and at increasing levels of severity, these exponentially proportional to the number of years without significant global warming. I’m not a PhD, but I’m certain to be able to cook something up which will convince any body with as much combined intelligence as the IPCC.

  147. It is not the professor so much as the pseudo or cult religious group he is apparently associated with. I guess us climate atheists need to run and hide or risk being shot by a stray C sharp! More PR grabbing nonsense and look at how much they are getting. Ignore the lot. Question, is this any difference then some religious fanatic issuing any kind of fanatical anything?

  148. “It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.”
    — C.S. Lewis

  149. arthur4563 says: December 24, 2012 at 6:13 am
    Well, we can at least confidently assume that “systematic musicology” has nothing to do with either logic or science, or ethics or morality.

    Precisely. It seems to be post-mortem. Oops, post-modern.

  150. Trying not to hog the comments section.
    If a person publicly advocates violence against an individual or a group that is a HATE CRIME.
    This matter been reported.
    No difference between Politically ,Religious ,Racially or Homophobic Motivated .

  151. Bill says: December 24, 2012 at 6:47 am Toward the bottom, he has his 3 rules. He wants to prosecute people on the basis of future effects. Hmmmm, all you need is to be able to predict the future for this to work. That’s what we have climate models for I guess.

    Precogs also work (most of the time?). Ref.: Minority Report.

  152. Gail Combs says:
    December 24, 2012 at 8:28 am

    Ric Werme says:
    December 24, 2012 at 5:50 am

    If he kills me, I’ll have my estate make him listen to the Portsmouth Sinfonia’s rendering of the Nutcracker’s Dance of the Brandied Sugar Plum Fairy
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Nah, Sentence him to listening to the complete works of Florence Foster Jenkins at 80 dba over and over and over…

    I’ll see your Florence Foster Jenkins and raise you one William McGonagall, the worst poet in the history of the English language. See here and here . For a sample:

    Beautiful railway bridge of the silv’ry Tay
    Alas! I am very sorry to say
    That ninety lives have been taken away
    On the last sabbath day of 1879
    Which shall be remembered for a very long time.”

    Readings of McGonagall poems have become a staple of our Burn’s Night gatherings.

  153. phlogiston says: December 24, 2012 at 7:12 am Parncnutt is an anagram of
    PRAT ‘n C**T

    There’s no need for extra letters. Part C***, Parc N*tt.

  154. Geoff Sherrington says:
    December 24, 2012 at 12:46 am

    Please don’t rush to judgement. You might be discussing a delightful person, a cultured and considerate person….

    There was once a chap with a short mustache who tried his hand at painting, was an animal lover, a proponent for the environment and was also a vegetarian.

    “The German countryside must be preserved under all circumstances, for it is and has forever been the source of strength and greatness of our people.”

    http://tinyurl.com/d2uaujr

    I’ll let your guys and gals figure out this ‘delightful’ personality from the past. :>(

  155. This is just the beginning, as the faith falls,
    first the zealots strike out against the messengers,
    second they strike in against their (now)fallen high priests,
    third they self destruct in messy ways.

    Same old movie, different song. Keep your firing lines open and ammo dry, this storm will also pass.
    There will be some danger for the easily targeted sceptic, but it should be brief, as stage 2 sets in quickly.
    Achmed the dead terrorist for sure.
    Collapse of this scam is accelerating, I love it.

    Merry Christmas to all, especially the humourless and paranoid experts.

    Remedy for this madness? Compulsory watching ‘The Ice Caps Are Melting” for hours?
    With date of production constantly flashing across screen.
    These phycologists will be suing Tiny Tim’s estate for permanently damaging their childhood mind, poisoning their mindset and causing their obsession with the ice caps.
    The’ Look what you made me do” defence?

  156. It irritates me when people call for my death because of my beliefs.

    I don’t know if it’s just arrogant stupidity that people do this, or
    if it’s that they think to frighten me. Maybe it should frighten me.
    Fool that I am, it just pisses me off. Maybe that’s the real goal.

    I shouldn’t be astonished anymore that such ‘enlightened’ men put forward
    such vicious crap, although I admit I still am. I’ve no clue what Professors
    of Systematic Musicology study, but it sounds like it should involve more
    literature and philosophy than my technical field. So why does it fall to
    a software guy from Alabama to point out the obvious?

    Professor Parncutt, let’s say you are absolutely correct for the sake of argument.
    Let’s suppose that forward thinking people agree with you and threaten these
    ‘GW deniers’ and successfully get the majority of them to recant their heresy.
    What happens next time there is a complicated scientific disagreement? I’m
    a simple guy, so pardon me for harping on the obvious, but in taking this single
    expedient step to solve a single problem quickly and easily, haven’t you completely
    destroyed the civilized protections that facilitate creative thinking and
    scientific, civil, and artistic progress? Worse, haven’t you darkened the world
    and the lives of all in it by giving rise to a reign of terror, where all people
    must henceforth live in fear of expressing ideas which, in your enlightened opinion,
    are incorrect and should never be expressed under pain of death? Even if we give
    you that your intellect far surpasses all others and you are always right, isn’t
    it evident that you’re advocating a totalitarian and hellish world?

    So, if we suppose your original premise is valid and that bloggers should
    be held accountable for the actions of those who read their blogs, don’t
    you think it behooves you to consider the consequences a little more
    thoroughly before you blithely call for the arbitrary death or imprisonment
    of anyone who disagrees with you? What penalties do you propose for yourself
    in this matter?

    ~shrug~

    Merry Christmas Eve.

  157. Anthony;
    Have you considered sending him a calendar?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    On second thought, maybe not. This lunatic is even closer to the edge than Mann.

  158. Alan Watt, CD (Certified Denialist), Level 7 says:
    December 24, 2012 at 9:34 am

    ….I’ll see your Florence Foster Jenkins and raise you one William McGonagall, the worst poet in the history of the English language…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Careful now my husband is a poet. Luckily he is much better than McGonagall just ask him.

  159. It’s funny that he mentions Breivik, because in many ways he IS Breivik. Open-minded people that they imagine are a danger to their ideal society must die. Fortunately the Professor has not picked up a machine gun to carry out the sentence.

  160. Gail Combs says:
    December 24, 2012 at 4:57 am
    J Cooper says:
    December 24, 2012 at 3:11 am

    Geoff Sherrington

    I agree this person should be ignored and hopefully he will go away….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    If he was isolated madman chance met like a similar guy I ran across in Cambridge MA. then I would agree with you but he is not. He is a Professor and a well known one in his field. This type of mania HAS TO BE CALLED OUT NOW.

    Vid

    How very right Gail – my underlying above. This is not to be ignored, “hopefully he will go away”. Utter nonsense. Such behaviour should be sharply condemned. It is death threats, the same as in the 10:10 video but now it shows it was not “just fun”, but seriously meant death threats.

    As Code Tech said above:
    CodeTech says:
    December 23, 2012 at 11:23 pm
    I would say it was unbelievable, but it’s completely par. Those who don’t SAY this are actually thinking it. The thought, the very idea, that they might be wrong, or their assessment could be in error, never even seriously enters their heads. It jars them that others find their conclusions to be wrong. I’m certain that AGW believers are as convinced of their rightness as ANY religious fanatic.
    …………………………….
    (For anyone keeping track, YES I’ve referenced both religion and Nazism in the same post, and YES I believe AGW believers and crusaders are completely identical in mindset, and will have equally or greater destructive results to civilization)

    yes, I have the feeling that this is the mind set of several warmista, and yes, I have the feeling we are facing the birth of a new religion.
    For times it was difficult for me to understand the times of Hypatia and how could people behave like they did at the time. Only now watching the Global Warming Alarmists at work I started to understand.

  161. Gail Combs says:
    December 24, 2012 at 8:28 am

    Nah, Sentence him to listening to the complete works of Florence Foster Jenkins [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtf2Q4yyuJ0 ] at 80 dba over and over and over…

    Oh dear. I might have heard her before, but repressed the memory. The cat images and comments were well choosen. :-)

    Alexander Feht – here’s one you may “enjoy” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoGElIOB9tc – Direct transfer from original Melotone recording studio “Your Portrailt in Sound” on 78 rpm shellac. The hand typed record label says

    " Biassy "   Words   by   Pushkin 
       Melodie-Song:Count A. Pavlovich
        Based on Bach-Prelude XVI
                  sung by
           FLORENCE FOSTEER JENKINS
             Cosme McMoon,Piano.
    
    I dare say Pushkin never sounded like that before.  :-)  One of the commenters said "I just gnawed my own ears off."
  162. Gail Combs says:
    December 24, 2012 at 8:28 am
    Nah, Sentence him to listening to the complete works of Florence Foster Jenkins at 80 dba over and over and over…

    Good heavens, this is WMD grade!

    [Weapons of Music Destruction? Mod]

  163. This type of rationale (and being called a denier) always make me think of the last time a major scientific theory gained world-wide political acclaim – Eugenics.

    And coincidentally, that was also taken up by a little Austrian man – called Hitler

    Eugenics was not restricted to Nazi Germany, and indeed was practiced in most Countries of the world to some degree or other. But it is was swiss advocate Ernst Rüdin who wrote the official commentary for the racial policy of Nazi Germany: “Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring”; and was awarded medals from the Nazis and Adolf Hitler personally

    Quotes:

    “The significance of Rassenhygiene [racial hygiene] did not become evident to all aware Germans until the political activity of Adolf Hitler and only through his work has our 30-year long dream of translating Rassenhygiene into action finally become a reality.”

    “Whoever is not physically or mentally fit must not pass on his defects to his children. The state must take care that only the fit produce children. Conversely, it must be regarded as reprehensible to withhold healthy children from the state.”–at a speech to the German Society for Rassenhygiene, quoting Hitler.

    Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%BCdin

    Andi

    PS – It’s Christmas Day here in NZ – Season’s Greetings to one and all – Warmist and Skeptic alike

  164. Posted in tips and notes, but, better here:

    More on Parncutt – http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/

    The guy could be said to be certifiably insane …he is proposing a death penalty on something which has a probability of happening, to be applied to people who have a probability of causing deaths….. !!!!

    If there is any probability of global cooling, or of no global warming occurring, or of humans turning out to be a minor contributor to said global warming, do we at least have the right to sentence Parncutt to a precautionary whipping? If so, lets check the statistics and carry it out as soon as possible!

    Parncutt: “…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. More generally, I propose that we limit the death penalty to people whose actions will with a high probability cause millions of future deaths..”

  165. Horrifying is the only description I can come up with. Saved the page, as a reminder of the extent of the sheer viciousness and hatred existing in the Warmist cult. I do not see this merely as the sickness of one individual, just one extreme example of the way they “think”.
    One chilling sentence (among many) is: “I wish to claim that it is generally ok to kill someone in order to save one million people”. That could be seen as a call for anyone willing to do so to assassinate anyone on “the list”.

    Then there is this: 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.

    So, only if you don’t repent your “climate sins” and participate in CAGW-approved “programs” will you be executed. If you do, then you will be allowed to spend the rest of your life in jail. What a relief. Whew! We can all rest easy now.

  166. Gail Combs says:
    December 24, 2012 at 8:28 am

    Ric Werme says:
    December 24, 2012 at 5:50 am

    If he kills me, I’ll have my estate make him listen to the Portsmouth Sinfonia’s rendering of the Nutcracker’s Dance of the Brandied Sugar Plum Fairy
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Nah, Sentence him to listening to the complete works of Florence Foster Jenkins at 80 dba over and over and over…

    Neither would have any effect. Remember he’s a musicologist.

  167. “Alan Watt, CD (Certified Denialist), Level 7 says:
    December 24, 2012 at 9:34 am

    …I’ll see your Florence Foster Jenkins and raise you one William McGonagall, the worst poet in the history of the English language. ”

    pffft..

  168. According to the latest comment at JoNova, the good Professor was lining himself up for two years time:

    § 283 (1) 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 as defined group of persons or a member of such a group specifically because of his membership in that group is asking or incites, with imprisonment up to two years to punish.(Google Translation)

    http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10002296

    http://legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/15709

  169. Mark Bofill says: December 24, 2012 at 9:46 am
    […]
    Let’s suppose that forward thinking people agree with you and threaten these
    ‘GW deniers’ and successfully get the majority of them to recant their heresy.
    What happens next time there is a complicated scientific disagreement? I’m
    a simple guy, so pardon me for harping on the obvious, but in taking this single
    expedient step to solve a single problem quickly and easily, haven’t you completely
    destroyed the civilized protections that facilitate creative thinking and
    scientific, civil, and artistic progress? Worse, haven’t you darkened the world
    and the lives of all in it by giving rise to a reign of terror, where all people
    must henceforth live in fear of expressing ideas which, in your enlightened opinion,
    are incorrect and should never be expressed under pain of death? Even if we give
    you that your intellect far surpasses all others and you are always right, isn’t
    it evident that you’re advocating a totalitarian and hellish world?

    Yes, but… wouldn’t it all become so much simpler, argument-wise? Hm 8-?

    Anyway,

    Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. (Fred The Great)

  170. “Jason says:
    December 24, 2012 at 3:11 am

    I am nearing the point of losing all faith in academia.”

    Disheartening, isn’t it? These are the people we turn young minds over to for instruction. We’re pretty much hosed.

  171. Oh, just one more:

    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. — Marcus Aurelius

    And now, have a nice Christmas, everyboby.

  172. ” henrythethird says: December 24, 2012 at 12:03 am
    Just think how many millions of “future people” we’d have now if there hadn’t been a forced removal of 5 – 6 million European Jews in 1945. ”

    It was actually 11 million non-combatant civilians murdered by the Nazis and 10% were babies and small children. That is a quote from Simon Wiesenthal. He was adamant on that point the the numbers be stated fully and not just isolated to one group. The Jews did not make up half the population but the did make up half the dead so they were singled out. When you realize the plan was simply to kill everyone who disagreed, including their own citizens, it gets very scary for those on all sides.

    Check out “General Plan East” sometime for a scary read. Eliminate 90% of all the Poles & Slavs keeping only 10% illiterate peasants to produce food for the fatherland.

    If you want to see how normal and educated people can fall for this genocidal nonsense give Albert Speer’s book “Inside the Third Reich” a read.

    To the prof I can only say your turn will come and it will come from those you have backed and supported. Just look at what they did to the soldiers doing the killings when an area was declared “jew free”. Sent to die on the Yugoslav and Russian fronts.

  173. Too funny! I was going to the university’s web page to demand a certain prof be fired for his genocidal comments and this popped up from my company’s filter:

    URL: GET http://www.uni-graz.at/
    Category: Education
    Reason: BLOCK-MALWARE
    Threat Type: othermalware
    Threat Reason: Domain reported and verified as serving malware.

    Well I guess any place that would hire the insane prof could be a source of more than just hate filled rantings.

  174. John says on December 23, 2012 at 11:04 pm:
    “If Herr Parncutt is serious, it helps explain how otherwise intelligent people embraced mass murdering ideologies like Communism and Nazism.”
    ========
    Dear John, read your history (or maybe the books I read 55 years ago have been burnt – in which case that (my request) is ,of course, impossible – Millions of people looked upon “Communism and Nazism” in the same way they now look at “Social Democrat(ism)”.

    I grew up in a European country (not Germany) where Nazism was seen as the “in thing” until Hitler wanted to take over the reins of that particular country, or indeed everywhere outside of Germany. Remember “The Volks-Wagen (VW) or “Peoples Car”” – And the Autobahn to drive it on. – Also remember the “Arbeit macht Frei” saying. – It has become a symbol of the Concentration – or death – Camps but it was the “war-cry” that brought Germany out of the 1930’s world recession.

    In those days German scientists “proved beyond doubt” that the Germanic race, and therefore also the German people were direct descendants from the Arian race – which apparently was a perfect one. – So for social democrats to use scientists as a tool is not a new idea. – Nor is it a new idea for them to make exceptional death-camps for certain people, i.e. people who do not tow the line are “in for it”.

    That’s my rant for today.

  175. There comes a point where one sees the gauntlet that has been thrown, and utters “touche!”

    Do they realize where this will lead, if such strident positioning continues?

  176. How did a fruitcake like him get to be a professor in the first place? Blaming the Pope for the spread of AIDS is like blaming glasses for alcoholism or gasoline stations for auto accidents. (The Catholic church advocates monogamous relationships. Last I heard that stops HIV and every other STD dead in its tracks Mr. Graz…. )

  177. Such wonderful gentle and caring people these progressives are, morally and mentally superior to EVERYONE.

    Being the light of the world is a difficult burden to carry.

  178. Code Monkey Wrench says:
    December 24, 2012 at 10:48 am

    “Jason says:
    December 24, 2012 at 3:11 am

    I am nearing the point of losing all faith in academia.”

    Disheartening, isn’t it? These are the people we turn young minds over to for instruction. We’re pretty much hosed.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Darn good reason to home school. Homeschooling Sees Dramatic Rise in Popularity

    One of the churches near me permits home schoolers the use of the church building. It has turned into sort of a parent-run school providing socialization and specialized training a single parent can not.

  179. I blame Anthony, I told him sending that bloody calendar to the wrong loony tune would cause trouble!

  180. Ric Werme,

    That Florence Foster Jenkins recording is something. I couldn’t understand a word. What language is she using? This is certainly not Russian. Bach’s material is limited to interludes, it seems. While the singing goes on, piano churns out some imbecilic kindergarten stuff. Ms. Jenkins seems to be not only voiceless but tone-deaf to boot. A rarity, a conversation piece! I thoroughly enjoyed it, thank you.

  181. I thought I posted this much earlier in the comments but I must have made a mistake somewhere as I cannot find it. So once again here it is. – Ok it may be rubbish but,—:

    John says on December 23, 2012 at 11:04 pm:

    “If Herr Parncutt is serious, it helps explain how otherwise intelligent people embraced mass murdering ideologies like Communism and Nazism.”
    =======
    Dear John, read your history (or maybe the books I read 55 years ago have been burnt – in which case that, my request, is ,of course, impossible) – Millions of people looked upon “Communism and Nazism” in the same way they now look at “Social Democrat(ism)”.

    I grew up in a European country (not Germany) where Nazism was seen as the “in thing” until Hitler wanted to take over the reins of that particular country, or indeed all countriesoutside of Germany.

    Remember “The Volks-Wagen (VW) or “Peoples Car”” – And the Autobahn to drive it on. – Also remember the “Arbeit macht Frei” saying. – It has become a symbol of the Concentration – or death – Camps but it was the “war-cry” that brought Germany out of the 1930’s world recession.

    In those days German scientists “proved beyond doubt” that the Germanic race, and therefore also the German people were direct descendants from the Arian race – which apparently was a perfect one. – So for social democrats to use scientists as a tool is not a new idea. – Nor is it a new idea for them to make exceptional death-camps for certain people, people who do not tow the line are “in for it”. And it may be worth taking into consideration that “Social Democracy” may/will or must reach a “Tipping Point” – Too many laws = secret police, etc. etc.

    That’s my rant for today.

  182. Sadly, he is not the only eco-fascist with murder or mass murder on his mind.

  183. “Martin van Etten says:
    December 24, 2012 at 6:31 am

    personally I also use desmogblog, scepticalscience, thinkprogress and even realclimate as (respected) references;
    next to that I read whattsupwiththat, bishophill, notricszone to know what is living in the counter(under)world of climatesceptisism;
    I don’s see what’s wrong whith that;”

    If you respect those sites, then it’s unlikely you’d be able to see what’s wrong with any of this, especially as that was the only issue you could raise in the face of this eco-fascist’s sick and twisted outbursts.

  184. And here is a quote I accidentally came across that fits the bill.
    If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. Anatole France

    The statement of this fruitcake,Pancake, and others like him should be a concern for all the people on the planet. It declares the world is ripe to be taken over by evil and wicked people. I struggle to believe how people are so stupid (and gullible).
    Rupert

  185. Of course, under the green’s sacred Precautionary Principle, Herr Parncutt should be under lock and key in a secure hospital for the foreseeable future. I’m sure his employer, whose reputation he has needlessly destroyed, will be able to fire him for gross misconduct and abuse of the unviversity computer system.

  186. Great Austrian musicians:Haydn, Mozart, Schubert, Bruckner, Mahler. I think any of them would have laughed at the suggestion that music can be rationally ‘explained’. In Haydn’s words, “It comes from above”.
    As for where AGW comes from, that is quite another matter…

  187. Hot under the collar says: December 24, 2012 at 11:38 am
    Well it answers one question.

    We now know who Peter Sellers based Doctor Strangelove on!

    Yes — but it’s Dr Kissinger :-) Still around…

  188. Sean says:
    December 24, 2012 at 12:06 pm
    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
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Thanks for posting that. I’ve sent the rector a complain as worded below. Should I receive a reply (I know, unlikely) I will post it here as well:

    I writing to you in protest of the remarks made by Richard Parncutt. While the university has done the right thing by removing these remarks from their website, that is hardly strong enough action. I’m sure you need no reminder that advocating for forced “re-education” and death penalties for one’s beliefs carries with it the stench of barbarism from history’s darkest chapters. I am not one of those who “deny” the science of global warming, in fact the opposite. But having studied the science closely, I’ve also concluded that many of the draconian measures proposed to mitigate global warming would themselves cause more harm than good. As a single example, we are already converting crops into bio-fuels, in essence burning the food while millions around the world are starving. Are the deaths of those people similarly on Richard Parncutt’s conscious? By his own standard, should he not be punished in the precise same manner he proposes to punish others?

    The issues regarding climate science are many and complex. They deserve to be debated publicly. Indeed, it is crucial that they be debated publicly that facts, logic and science may prevail over politics, rhetoric, and in the case of those such as Richard Parncutt, hate speech reminiscent of last centuries darkest horrors.

    The university owes the world not simply an apology for what appeared on their web site, but a strong and unequivocal statement denouncing this blatant attempt to silence the debate by threat of violence.

  189. (Watch out: I’m about to blow my own trumpet)
    It was me who Jo Nova generously h/t’d for sending her the link to this nasty man’s web-page on Graz Uni’s site.
    As soon as I had read Parncutt’s odious piece I separately emailed the Rector of Graz Uni and Parncutt to register my disgust. I wonder if I’ll get replies from either of them….

    BTW What is “Systematic Musicology”? It sounds about as worthwhile as studying the sociology of drainpipes.

  190. I left this remark at joanne nova;s.com blog.
    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!!

  191. Just don’t ignore people who say things like this, don’t let it slide. Think of the massive state murders of the last couple hundred years.

    They say they’re kidding, but they’re really not.

  192. Please, see what Parncutt’s political opinion is, and you will not wonder at all.
    “http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/”

  193. This man would have done well in the Third Reich. Clearly belief in the CAGW cause has taken over his whole brain and removed his power of rational thought

  194. O H Dahlsveen says:
    December 24, 2012 at 12:07 pm
    “And it may be worth taking into consideration that “Social Democracy” may/will or must reach a “Tipping Point” – Too many laws = secret police, etc. etc.”

    The founder of german social democrats, August Bebel, was deeply impressed by Karl Marx. By todays standard, Bebel is best described as a Maoist. One of the current leaders of the German social democrat party, Andrea Nahles, used to have the picture of Fidel Castro in her Berlin office. So, they’re constantly circling a tipping point of lunacy; from their inception. 1891, a German classic liberal, Eugen Richter, has written a 1984-style satire extrapolating Bebel’s visions, available free here, Sozialdemokratische Zukunftsbilder, Social Democratic Future Visions,

    (German text)

    http://www.antibuerokratieteam.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Zukunftsbilder.pdf

    and everything in it sounds as if the later DDR (East germany) took the book as their blueprint.

    Compared to that, the current EU is just a bunch of ordinary thieves.

  195. Gene Selkov says:
    December 24, 2012 at 7:13 am (etc): You cannot give votes at WUWT but you get mine.

  196. Ric Werme says:
    December 24, 2012 at 5:50 am
    Forget him, I’m coming after you. That link hurt my ears. ;) And that’s even with me liking this polyphonic stuff.

  197. Geoff Sherrington says December 24, 2012 at 12:46 am

    Please don’t rush to judgement. You might be discussing a delightful person, a cultured and considerate person whose mind has been filled with extreme views in which he believes honestly and deeply …

    Good point as he does reference the (wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing) Skeptical Science website in his very first line in that attention-grabbing and now-archived screed …

    .

    Merry Christmas to all on the site here, and to the staff of hard-working mods and to Anthony and his family to be sure!

    _Jim

    .

  198. Gail Combs says December 24, 2012 at 8:42 am

    SInce the gun ban in Australia state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%…….

    The same sort of statistics are seen in Switzerland.

    What? The same? Little too much egg nog while posting mebbe?

  199. Gail Combs says December 24, 2012 at 5:38 am

    They are also starting to ‘show an interest’ in home gardens. I just heard there is a newly past law in NC regulating home gardens but I have not been able to track it down yet.

    Funny … I heard the WORLD was going to end a couple days ago. Even read it on the internet … didn’t happen though …

    Gail, it’s alright if you take a holiday off from con-spiratorial-mindset-thinking, we won’t mind.

    Honest!

    (Oh, BTW it’s “passed” not really “past” … maybe it’s the speech to text thing huh …)

    .

  200. Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. – Voltaire

    Seems an appropriate admonition for our warmista drones.

  201. Austria, failed artist, Grand Schemes including killing lots of people. It doesn´t sound like a good idea.

  202. Jim says:
    December 24, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    Gail, it’s alright if you take a holiday off from con-spiratorial-mindset-thinking, we won’t mind.

    Actually, Gail Combs is usually closer than most to comprehending reality as it is.

    I’ve had it with this cheap parlor blather about “conspiracy theorists.”

    What, there can be no conspiracies? There is none? Or, maybe, just maybe, there are powerful people who want more power, and talk to each other behind closed doors? Thank you for accepting such an obvious possibility.

    Now drink your wine, Jim, and stop bothering decent folks.

  203. Peter Pan says:
    December 24, 2012 at 1:52 pm
    “Please, see what Parncutt’s political opinion is, and you will not wonder at all.”

    Heh… his headlines:

    “(1) address the main problems
    (2) think sustainable, altruistic, global, and egalitarian”

    He has his priorities. Obviously we and the Pope are the main problem and once we are done away with it’s time for the altruism… love me some fanatic altruists…

  204. Why did he leave out the Minnesotans for Global Warming? They make music he doesn’t likely enjoy.

    Is it too cold in Minnesota? Does he fear that the may exercise their right for self defense?

    It’s scary as these fruitcakes like Richard Parncutt, Kelly Anspaugh, Erik Loomis, and others walk the halls of academia or even that the walk among us anywhere.

  205. This bloke is another example of a particularly nasty sub-species of Warmist:

    the Aussie Hate Academic.

    Parncutt, Lewandowsky, Karoly…

  206. A slightly edited version of something I posted at Jo Nova’s site:
    ==================================================
    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.

    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 discussing how to eliminate the Jews, counter-revolutionaries, ruling class Poles, 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.

    What’s so contemptible about people like Parncutt is that if his “final solution” ever came to pass, you know he’d be sitting there cheering as people were executed.

  207. Chilling. And this at a time of Goodwill to All? This is another man who should be careful what he wishes for.

    This kind of thing has been raised before. I don’t have the link (I could dig it out, but hey, it’s Christmas Day here in Australia, I’m in laid-back mode). It was here some months back, some professor teaching-preaching to his students that every person “ought” to kill nine, reducing the population to 10%.

    I think they are trying to raise this as a flag, like a call to war. I think they hope suddenly “everyone” will jump on it and start calling for the culling of “difficult” humans. Fortunately saner heads see such nonsense pulled and the regular guy or gal on the street is simply not joining in. Indeed most would be shocked.

    They are beginning to push this because the whole game is on the slide, the sham is on the downturn, so they have to push it now before all the power is taken from them. It’s their last hope, I think – it might even be the last nail in the CAGW coffin.

    But, oh boy, how close we came. Pointman and others who can see the psychology are so spot on, the lunatics want it bloody. Thing is, pushing such an agenda too quickly and too forcefully show them up for what they are – anti-human.

    Well… I will drink to their awakening, however it happens, whenever it happens, hopefully more sooner than later.

    Merry Christmas everyone. Cheers to all who rejoice in the world as it is and all who understand our right to be part of it – just as we are.

  208. A little known fact-the Nazis were uber green-they loved nature and animals, but hated humans, bit like the Greens and warmists. If the Greens and warmists had their way, we would revert back to pre Neolithic days- living in caves, foraging for nuts and berries- no fire(global warming and all that) and no hunting animals. Remember – “Nazi” stands for National Socialist Workers Party – they were socialists. The chief proponents of the AGW crap are the UN. But who were the chief instigators of the UN and their predecessor, the League of Nations ? The Fabians-a bunch of ratbag Socialists with some pretty “out there” ideas – eerily similar to the Nazis. Go on to YouTube and watch the interviews with George Bernard Shaw – the guy respects the Nazis and reminds me of Charles Manson in his callous disregard of human life. The UN regard themselves as the logical One World Government(see Agenda 21). Charming, world Nazism by stealth. Getting back to the Hitleresque climate denier hatred – I am in deep s*%t – a proud and vocal denier and Jewish ! All very disturbing-please pass the soda water.

  209. Jim says:
    December 24, 2012 at 2:53 pm
    Gail, it’s alright if you take a holiday off from con-spiratorial-mindset-thinking, we won’t mind.

    Gail Combs is much closer than many to comprehending reality as it is.

    What, there ain’t no conspiracies? There are no powerful people who talk to each other behind closed doors to grab more power? All this parlor blather about conspiracy theories being laughable is exactly what conspirators want useful idiots to think.

  210. My late Father-in-Law, may he rest in peace, was born and raised in Vienna Austria. He split when the Nazis annexed the country in 1938, and was heartily glad that he did so. He never went back.

    Hitler himself was an Austrian, an many Austrians were hardcore Nazis. Parncutt is keeping local tradition.

  211. Wait. But the MSM says strict gun control laws like the ones in Norway are supposed to stop shooting massacres? Perhaps Anders Breivik didn’t get the memo that gun bans are “supposed to work”.

  212. What is really needed is a deserted island somewhere, where people like this can be dumped, with not electronic devices or communication to the outside world.

    Somewhere where they can do no more harm to society.

  213. Walter Sobchak says:
    December 24, 2012 at 4:55 pm
    Parncutt is keeping local tradition.
    Parncrutt is australian even if at the moment is employed at the University of Graz in Austria.

  214. davidmhoffer says:
    December 24, 2012 at 1:29 pm
    ……….
    Thanks David for taking action and the very calm but firm letter!

  215. juanslayton on December 23, 2012 at 11:19

    PS. I am a skeptic. If any of Professor Parncut’s have thoughts of taking it upon themselves to implement his program, be aware that I live in a country where citizens are authorized to arm and defend themselves from would-be assassins.

    (Should read Parncutt’s followers)
    ———–
    You’re hyperventilating. Calm down before you faint.

    This ain’t gonna happen.
    Even if people were starving in the streets and decided you numb nuts deserved to pay a law would have to be passed first. This would have to get past the democratic process. Then it would have to get past the legal process which tends to be against laws that are applied before the law came into effect.

    The Professor is talking about legal process, not assassins, another point you seem confused about.

    And if an assassin did come after you in some fantasy scenario your dumb-assed gun ain’t gonna save you. First on the draw always wins.

  216. Who is Richard Windsor? says:
    December 24, 2012 at 7:52 am

    I think that’s just barely outside of violating Godwin’s law.

    I don’t think you can have a Godwin violation in a thread about someone calling for mass murders. :)

  217. Alexander Feht says December 24, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    Actually, Gail Combs is usually closer than most to comprehending reality as it is.

    It is the general consensus of the ‘adults’ in the room that she sees con-spiracies where there are none and collusion where there isn’t any (notwithstanding the application of Hanlon’s razor which states: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.“)

    Not EVERYTHING is a part of some GRAND con-spir-acy; perhaps someday God in his wisdom will grant you the maturity and grace to see that as well …

    Merry Christmas, Alexander.

    .

  218. I think that the top three things that are driving the extreme believers crazy are, in order:

    1) When anyone asks in any comment section of any blog (that doesn’t immediately censor the comment) a question along the lines of “It’s been 30 years and a 40% increase in CO2. Please type, in your own words, any irrefutable evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is in any way involved in any measurable negative effect on any aspect of the Earth’s climate” and the answers are, in order:

    a) Loads of climate scientists say so

    b) Check out these thousands of links to thousands of modeling studies

    c) Crickets

    d) Tumbleweeds

    There’s no back-up plan with any any hope. They’ve tried:

    2) Ocean acidification, a meme that is still limping along, so not totally stillborn, but consigned to the trashcan by virtue of the fact that the oceans are, and will continue to be alkaline/basic

    3) Extreme weather events

    This cartoon from the “adult” comic VIZ already preempted the “new catastrophe” meme in 2004 (if I’m recalling the year correctly):

    I’m sure many of these climate frauds, liars, dupes, 3rd rate scientists and idiots have so much invested in this, both professionally and personally, that looking in the mirror is a non-starter, hence the alternative solutions.

  219. LazyTeenager says: December 24, 2012 at 5:48 pm

    “…The Professor is talking about legal process, not assassins, another point you seem confused about….”

    Oh! Then its all OK!

    Phew. I thought he was proposing something unreasonable. Thanks, Lazy.

  220. Let me get this straight – He is accusing skeptics (sorry, I mean evil holocost deniers – sic) of mudering billions of people who have not even been born yet!!!! Tell me skeptics – how do you kill non-existent people? Meanwhile Warmists don’t mind destroying the only thing keeping real live people alive – a free economic system – all in the name of saving those very people that he is willing to sentence to a slow economic death. Liberal, rationalist ‘thinking’ is amaizing, isn’t it?

  221. Wow. Talk about an unhinged discussion. The average class of fifth-graders couldn’t do better. Among the hooting and catcalls I’ve seen slurs against his nationality, his profession, comparisons to Hitler (real classy!) Is this what deniers’ idea of calm, reasoned discussion?

    Anyway, sorry to put a damper on the groupthink here, but I think there’s a lot of merit to the Professor’s thought experiment (that’s right – despite the inflamed rhetoric on this site, this post was clearly only a thought experiment – not a call for executions or a death threat. Sorry to disappoint everyone. A death threat is when you say “I am going to kill you,” or “Someone should kill this person.” Parncutt didn’t say that.)

    Continuing on, it might be helpful to step back and think about Parncutt’s ideas more generally. Let’s say that there was a good chance that sometime in the future society would suffer a catastrophe, causing untold damage and death. For example, a city received a report from a messenger that a distant, terrible army was marching upon the city and would arrive in a matter of weeks. Furthermore, good evidence had been accumulated that the chance and potential severity of this catastrophe could be reduced significantly by early preventative action – so let’s say this city had known peace for years, had let their defences and standing army slip into decline, and it was argued that defences should be bolstered and the army reconstituted and retrained.

    THEN let’s say that a small group of people in the city began to work assiduously to question the reality of the approaching army and hamstring any attempts to prepare for their arrival. If these citizens succeeded in their attempts and the army did arrive, it would result in the wholesale destruction and enslavement of the city. And if it could be shown that some of these citizens acted despite knowing perfectly well that the approaching army was real – perhaps even that they were in the pay of the city’s enemies – would it not be reasonable to punish these people as criminals (assuming that the city survives enough to make such punishment possible)? After all, acting out of cynical self-interest, they were indirectly culpable for vast and needless death and damage.

    I think it is perfectly reasonable to punish individuals in these cases – individuals who have knowingly, cynically acted to damage society. I think awareness is an important distinction here – I would not advocate severe punishments of those truly ignorant, only those who knew full well what they were doing. For example, let’s say evidence emerged that Watts continued to deny climate change and work passionately to undermine attempts to tackle the issue, despite privately realising that AGW was just as real and dangerous as every single major scientific organisation in the world has confirmed it to be. And let’s say that he did continued in his wicked ways in part because, it was revealed, he was receiving support from fossil fuel-emitting industries, or because he didn’t wish to endanger lucrative blog revenues (bear in mind that this is just hypothetical of course.) In that instance, I would argue that in this case it would be justified to tally up Watts’ proportional share of the blame in slowing the effort to respond to climate change. If climate change is as destructive as scientific consensus indicates it will be, then the proportional damage caused by a single highly influential figure such as Watts could be very, very large indeed.

    At the top of the spectrum of climate villains, corrupt government officials and industry captains colluding to disrupt the democratic process, prevent effective legislation and muddy the public discussion are doubtless the worst offenders (equivalent to bribed ministers of the king of the aforementioned city feeding him false advice.) On the other end of the scale, small fry such as the average WUWT commenter are probably not responsible for much damage individually, and are mostly I am sure really convinced of their delusions.

  222. Anagrammers, if you use his whole name, you can get to:

    Rancid crap truth

    Rancid definition: Repugnant; nasty; unpleasant as a result of being old and stale.

  223. Mike,

    It would be better for you if you had not posted, instead of proving that you’re a fool.

    There is NO empirical measurement anywhere that supports the AGW conjecture. Your long drawn out parable fails. Why? Because your fictional Cassandra warning of an approaching army has zero evidence that any such army exists. She is in the position of falsely screaming “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

    In case you haven’t noticed, the global warming scare is being deconstructed by Planet Earth. So quit screaming “Fire!” You are sounding a false alarm. That’s very unethical on your part. Stop it.

  224. Mike, do you also believe that if the converse is true, and scientists have been “cynically” diverting funds to themselves by promoting scare stories, such as through scientifically bogus graphs, that they should also be punished ??

  225. Mike-

    You can call it a thought experiment if it makes you feel better. In what way is this anything other than a device by which you and Parncutt try to avoid taking responsibility for what you’re saying? If you honestly think there’s merit to this ‘thought experiment’, then why aren’t you advocating it? Do you lack the courage of your convictions, or is it that somewhere deep down you realize that you’re supporting an atrocity?

    You go to some trouble to sort people by motives. You are barking up the wrong tree. It doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference why people elect to exercise their rights, nor should it. Rights don’t mean a thing if the motives for exercising those rights are subject to review and prosecution; this is not what the word ‘freedom’ means.

    Maybe you could answer the question I raised earlier. Should this admirable thought experiment be realized, and skeptics back down and shut up, what would happen the next time society faced a controversial issue? Am I wrong in thinking that the free exchange of ideas would be severely damaged by the fear of prosecution by anyone with an axe to grind and who might be able to frame a plausible case about motives? Would you care to live in such a world, to be subject to such witch hunts? I tell you frankly that I’d rather be dead.

    I guess the short form boils down to this: Do you believe that Robespierre was the rightful heir of the Enlightenment? I don’t.

    Merry XMas Eve.

  226. The tragedy of human history is not that fools who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat it, but that they do so in sufficient numbers to condemn the rest of us to repeating it with them.

    If it should come to pass “Mike”, that there was no invader, that it was all a ruse by the generals to raise taxes, conscript soldiers, declare martial law and seize power, what then? If it should come to pass that the lookouts and scouts who knew there was no invader were profited handsomely for saying there was, as did the manufacturers of arms, the builders of fortifications, and the suppliers to the generals? What then Mike? Who should be punished then, and how?

    You need not answer the question Mike. Martial law has already been declared, power seized, dissenters executed. The answer no longer matters.

  227. Mike says: “I think it is perfectly reasonable to punish individuals in these cases – individuals who have knowingly, cynically acted to damage society.”

    So let’s look at that from a slightly different perspective: In my “thought experiment,” I propose that we punish those who are attempting to knowingly and cynically destroy advanced and emerging economies that allow hundreds of millions of people to live in the kind of comfort and prosperity only dreamed about about in past centuries, who if they have a chance, will reduce the standard of living of all people on earth.

    For example you. Tomorrow. With hard time. I reserve judgement on the death penalty in your case. If you confess, I may grant you leniency.

    Oh, I forgot. It’s only a “thought experiment.” I got carried away.

  228. Professor poindexter would like to, save our future offspring by killing the parents of our future offspring. Sweet bejeezus.

  229. D –
    Firstly, the majority of my argument (everything but the last paragraph I believe) was hypothetical, specifically written not to require acceptance of AGW as a precondition. So your reaction is somewhat besides the point.

    Secondly, you (and many others on this site) say there is zero evidence. Good for you. However every major scientific organisation on the planet beg to differ. Reams of data beg to differ. Thanks all the same, but between you and the scientific establishment, I’m going to go with the latter.

    Phil –
    Sure, that’s perfectly reasonable. My point was simply that, if you can show that someone has acted to harm society by spreading misinformation in the cynical pursuit of their own limited self-interest, then social justice dictates (if you believe that a reasonable condition of living in society is the responsibility to temper self-interest in favour of the greater good) that punishment is merited.

    That said, there is no indication that misconduct has occurred in climate science. At least, if there is, no allegations of it has surfaced outside of the [trimmed] micro-bubble, or if they have apparently surfaced they have quickly deflated under closer inspection. Basically, I wouldn’t say scientists are faultless (that would be silly), but I have a huge amount of respect for the verification and testing mechanisms developed and standardised in scientific research. Anyway, if I had to pick between one source of information to place my trust in, I would take Nature over WUWT.

    In contrast, many prominent climate change [trimmed] are notorious for receiving direct funding from the industries whose profit margins are threatened by sensible emission legislation. Might not mean anything, sure, but it doesn’t look good. And who knows what goes on behind closed doors…

    (Note: I’m not trying to claim that anyone and everyone out there trying to [trimmed] climate change is “in the pocket” of big business. People are complicated and there are plenty of factors that could trigger someone to fight climate science for honest – though I would naturally argue misguided – reasons.)

    [Read, then follow site policy: Mod.]

  230. “The 19th-century positivist dream of discovering and of defining the discipline of systematic musicology in terms of …laws, slowly evaporated. Ideological trends stemming from modernism and later post-structuralism fundamentally altered the nature of the project.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_musicology).

    In other words Richard Parncutt has a degree in fantasy. His discipline “slowly evaporated”. Now it consists of “whatever balogny I can come up with to get published”.

    To paraphrase Sam Clemens: A tale “should” accomplish something and arrive somewhere. But “this tale” accomplishes nothing and arrives in air.

    I am guessing that Richard Parncutt is part of the “consensus.”

    Cheers,
    Kelly

  231. Mark –
    1) I never said that I wouldn’t advocate such a policy : ) However, I wanted to make a more fundamental point about the potential merit of Parncutt’s opinions. Considering the tone of conversation on this blog is rather… vehement, I thought it would be best if I kept my own personal approval or lack thereof out of the picture, for that post at least.

    2) ‘Atrocity’ is a very strong word. I’m not sure either I or Parncutt are advocating anything deserving of that word. In fact, it’s WUWT readers who have been doing the heavy lifting throwing around accusations of intended genocide (and comparisons to Nazism, lol.) What I argued is a reasonable proposition – that powerful, influential individuals who can be shown to have cynically acted to damage society and preserve their own interests should be subject to prosecution. Even if such prosecution were to extend to execution, I don’t think the proportional punishment of individuals culpable of such crimes hardly befits the label of ‘atrocity.’ Certainly, such a proposition is perfectly in line with the principles of social justice and punishment accepted in our justice system. The only difference here is that the potential damage that may have been caused by individuals working to delay climate action is orders of magnitude greater than the average civil misdemeanour.

    (Note: personally I don’t believe in execution – no matter the magnitude of the crime.)

    3) I’m not quite sure what you are trying to say in your discussion of “rights.” One quick point: personally I think one of the conditions of living in our society should be that rights must be balanced with responsibilities. Society doesn’t work well if everyone just runs around yelling “don’t tread on me!” I think our society (especially American society) has swung too far towards focussing purely on rights, to the point of disparaging and viewing with the utmost suspicion even the suggestion that rights might be tempered with responsibilities.

    4) The issue of freedom of speech is a red herring I think. I suppose I would argue that this is an issue of good faith. There’s nothing wrong with raising doubts or having questions per se, but at a certain point, after the basic science has been so firmly settled, to keep fighting and arguing serves no further social good. And if it can be shown that an individual continued to disrupt debate under the guise of “asking questions,” citing freedom of speech, simply to cynically manipulate public debate, then I think if that individual’s actions are malicious, and deserving of the disapproval of wider society at the very least.

    Anyway this is a long discussion and right now I need to escape the blistering summer temperatures here and go to the river. I will return to respond to further comments when I return : )

  232. That said, there is no indication that misconduct has occurred in climate science.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You must be a paid troll since nobody familiar with the issues would possibly say anything so stupid.

  233. “Andi Cockroft says:

    December 24, 2012 at 10:06 am”

    Churchill was also a strong believer in Eugenics too.

  234. Mike says:

    Firstly, the majority of my argument (everything but the last paragraph I believe) was hypothetical, specifically written not to require acceptance of AGW as a precondition. So your reaction is somewhat besides the point.

    Secondly, you (and many others on this site) say there is zero evidence. Good for you. However every major scientific organisation on the planet beg to differ. Reams of data beg to differ. Thanks all the same, but between you and the scientific establishment, I’m going to go with the latter.

    Mike: all arguments proposing genocide start out as hypothetical. In the 20th century, those hypothetical arguments eventually resulted in mass murder on a scale never before imagined to be possible. So when people like this Austrian/Australian eco-fascist professor start talking about capital punishment for those with whom he disagrees, people tend to get uncomfortable. Unless they are like you and locked into that point of view.

    No one says there is zero evidence. What is being said is not that there is no evidence of CAGW, but that there is not conclusive evidence for CAGW. In fact, mounting evidence suggests it’s a concocted nightmarish fantasy to force human beings into writing laws and regulations that seriously diminish the quality of life in both developed and emerging economies.

    There are reams of data that support both sides of the issue. There is no conclusive evidence to support the fact that catastrophic warming is even probable. That is the state of the science, i.e. no one knows if the climate will begin to cool or resume heating after 16 years of doing neither.

    Stalin was the establishment and Lysenko was one of his favorite scientists. Eugenics was considered advanced and irrevocably true science by both left and right-wing intellectuals one hundred years ago. So don’t tell me the so-called “scientific establishment,” whatever that means, is beyond correction here.

  235. Mike says: December 24, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    “…Wow. Talk about an unhinged discussion. The average class of fifth-graders couldn’t do better. Among the hooting and catcalls I’ve seen slurs against his nationality, his profession, comparisons to Hitler (real classy!) Is this what deniers’ idea of calm, reasoned discussion?…”

    Did you fail to read what our ‘friend’ wrote, Mike?

    Talk about an unhinged discussion. Comparisons with Hitler are not only apt, they are probably the only fair comparisons one can make. I think he is getting about as ‘calm and professional’ a discussion as he may expect under the circumstances.

    Your logic puts you pretty much in the same camp. We should just believe that which we are told? No questions or doubts allowed? If there are any doubts they must be labeled the product of payment or selfish motives by self interested parties?

    Noble Cause corruption and belief is a powerful thing, but I am amazed at smart people not even having a hard look at something they are being sold just because it sounds ‘right and good’.

    Never in the history of science was such scattered, scant adjusted, modeled and contradictory evidence simply taken at face value by so many.

    They may in fact turn out to be correct, but with less than 30 years of any sort of substantial data they sure as hell don’t know that yet.

    And neither do you, or Parncutt. In spite of your blind fervor for your noble causes.

  236. Mike:

    Sure, that’s perfectly reasonable. My point was simply that, if you can show that someone has acted to harm society by spreading misinformation in the cynical pursuit of their own limited self-interest, then social justice dictates (if you believe that a reasonable condition of living in society is the responsibility to temper self-interest in favour of the greater good) that punishment is merited.

    So, we have a known, absolute, 100% is-now-causing-tremendous-harm “solution” …

    YOUR supposed solution IS killing millions through abject poverty, sickness, cold, hunger, thirst, parasites and disease, vermin and wasted food …. I can solvwe those problems immediately with better roads, better transportation, cheaper fuels, cheaper foods, better ferrtilizer, better water treatment, more water distribution plants, more power plants, more elctricity and better living conditions.

    YOU are killing these millions now, and impoverishing billions more deliberately through YOUR fears of supposed CAGW. No reality. Only “fears” of a potential future. YOUR extrapolations and false “moral-ism” are your religion, your dogma – so YOU want to kill billions. YOU are the group actually killing millions now. YOUR demand to send MY money to corrupt agemcies and corrupt dictators kills even more indirectly than YOU kill through lack of food, water, shelter, and warmth. …

    In turn, you claim there “might be” a better earth, a warmer earth, a more productive earth with more acreage available for crops, people, animals, and more food, fuel, fodder, and farms through higher CO2 levels 100 years from now. Maybe.

    You can’t say how much warmer – you FEAR 5 degrees warmer, but can’t calculate it. CAn’t even say if that 5 degrees is 1/100 of 1 percent, 1/10 of one percent, 1/5 of one percent, 1 percent, or 10 percent.

    YOU can’t say what the likelihood is of a 1 degree drop. No change. A 1 degree rise. A 2 degree rise.

    EVERY prediction your CAGW propagandists have made has been wrong. Dead wrong. Yet YOU are the one who IS killing millions now, ruining billions economically because YOU “believe” you fear a 100 year future YOU cannot even calculate correctly 10 years in the future.

    I have shown YOU (this music professor) are the threat. YOU are the ones actually killing people. YOU are the one group defying measurements and claiming no climate change the past 2500 years. Therefore, will you walk to the gallows willingly first – as an example of YOUR “thought experiment” – (er, death threat)? Or will you volunteer yourself, your immediate family and your parents and your grandparents, all their children, and all your children become immediately castrated?

  237. Mike;
    2) ‘Atrocity’ is a very strong word. I’m not sure either I or Parncutt are advocating anything deserving of that word. In fact, it’s WUWT readers who have been doing the heavy lifting throwing around accusations of intended genocide (and comparisons to Nazism, lol.) What I argued is a reasonable proposition
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    No. What you are doing is attempting to re-frame the discussion in order to defend the indefensible and make it seem reasonable. Parncutt’s supporters are clearly in full damage control mode. Come up with all the analogies and explanations you want, the bottom line doesn’t change. Parncutt advocated for forced re-education camps and executions. I seriously doubt that you fail to see the parallels being drawn, and your deliberate attempt to cast them in a different light says your are cut from the same cloth as Parncutt.

  238. Mike says: December 24, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    “…Wow. Talk about an unhinged discussion. The average class of fifth-graders couldn’t do better. Among the hooting and catcalls I’ve seen slurs against his nationality, his profession, comparisons to Hitler (real classy!) Is this what deniers’ idea of calm, reasoned discussion?…”

    Did you fail to read what our ‘friend’ wrote, Mike?

    Talk about an unhinged discussion. Comparisons with Hitler are not only apt, they are probably the only fair comparisons one can make. I think he is getting about as ‘calm and professional’ a discussion as he may expect under the circumstances.

    Your logic puts you pretty much in the same camp. We should just believe that which we are told? No questions or doubts allowed? If there are any doubts they must be labeled the product of payment or selfish motives by self interested parties?

    Noble Cause corruption and belief is a powerful thing, but I am amazed at smart people not even having a hard look at something they are being sold just because it sounds ‘right and good’.

    Never in the history of science was such scattered, scant adjusted, modeled and contradictory evidence simply taken at face value by so many.

    They may in fact even turn out to be correct, but with less than 30 years of any sort of substantial data they sure as hell don’t know that yet.

    And neither do you, or Parncutt. In spite of your blind fervor for your noble cause.

  239. The real issue here for me is how reasonable people get to a point where they would ask to exterminate those who differ with them. I personally know many good, concerned citizens who have firmly bought into the alarmist propaganda. I know that my friends act from genuine fear and concern for the earth. However, once fear sets in, rational thinking goes away. In such a mind set, a sceptic looks like the devil, maliciously trying to destroy all you hold dear. At that point, argument is futile. 

    My friends will tell me, more or less politely, that I am uninformed or deluded, and if I can get them at all to look at data, they may agree that there might be an argument, but comes the next day, it is as if this discussion never took place. The next thing I hear is that all climate-sceptic opinions come from people who were bribed by Big Oil. 

    Not that this is new. It is classic in-group / out-group behavior, and has enabled a lot of religious and pseudo-religious conflicts in our history. Science has been the one ray of light allowing humankind to get away from all that. And here is for me the biggest infamy: that the very mantle of science is misused by some alarmist to undermine and negate the most important gift of science to mankind: The ability to look at data, and discipline your thinking.

    How do we defend from this? I think the key is to explain better to the public what scientific thinking is.  This blog is wonderful for just that purpose. Thank you for existing, and Merry Christmas to all of you! 

  240. David –
    1) Really? Has “martial law already been declared”? If it had, I would imagine we might see some of the following: a global tax on carbon; a binding global framework for emission-reductions; wide social discussion of climate change (i.e. recognition of the magnitude of the danger disrupting the soothing business-as-usual discourse still running richly through our politics and media. And as for “dissenters executed”… well, you and everyone on this blog seem to still be alive and kicking. I for one haven’t heard any stories of midnight disappearances of climate change disputers (happy with that, mod?) a la Pol Pot. I’m just not convinced that your fatalism here is justified. The scientific community has long settled the issue, but society at large is still muddling around and has not resolved to act concertedly on the issue yet.

    Duke –
    Well, that is a different argument altogether. But I’ll entertain it. I personally am not advocating, and would never advocate, economic collapse/decline as an answer to climate change. A) I don’t think it’s even remotely possible B) even if it was possible, I don’t think it’s a good solution. I like and am in favour of continued economic growth, just like you. But the difference between us, it seems, is that I don’t think a climate change/greenhouse gas solution is mutually exclusive with future economic growth. But then, I have a pretty high opinion of humanity’s ability to innovate and find better ways of generating energy and running industrial infrastructure than in our current emission-heavy system. But the only way to spur that innovation is to put a sensible price on the pollution.

    David again –
    Feel free to familiarise with specific instances of alleged misconduct. I am not aware of any (other than Climategate – if that is what you’re referring to, then of course I must mention that the CRU was exonerated of all charges of misconduct by no less than eight independent investigatory committees – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#cite_note-6committees-15.)

    Duke again –
    1) Wow. For a site filled with people flinging around accusations of alarmism, you sure don’t mind letting your imagination run wild huh. He’s Austrian eh – clearly a fascist!
    2) Well D Böehm for one says there is zero evidence. As for the claim that there isn’t conclusive evidence… I’m not sure I understand where you would get that impression. There’s rock-solid evidence for both rising CO2 levels, increasing average temperatures, and many of the expected impacts are happening on schedule. The Arctic is showing clear signs of warming.

    “There is plenty of uncertainty about details in the global-warming picture: exactly how much it will warm, the locations where rainfall will increase or decrease, and so forth… But there’s near-unanimous agreement that global climate is already changing and that fossil fuels are at least partly to blame.” – Robert Henson, The Rough Guide to Climate Change.

    3) Can you provide evidence of a “concocted nightmarish fantasy”?
    4) Further – I would argue that the world that would be sculpted out of an effective response to climate change would be a radically better world – as a good climate change solution involves, among other things: addressing long-standing global inequalities; developing comprehensive global environmental management systems to safeguard our one and only home; spurring innovation and the development of much better technologies than the ones we use today; fostering scientific and ecological awareness and global citizenship.
    5) No, there are not “reams of data to support both sides.” There is incontrovertible data to support of warming, and excellent data to support the probability of further warming causing extensive disruption and damage. Arguing otherwise is… pretty disingenuous at this stage I think. Anyway, take your argument up with every major scientific organisation in the world.
    6) The climate has been heating over the last 16 years. 1998 was a flash hot year but the overall trend is still perfectly clear. Regrettably frequent mistake.
    7) I’m sorry, but I’m not sure what the relevance of discussing Stalin or Soviet science is here. Last time I checked, the USSR had collapsed, and Stalin was dead, and the world’s thousands of scientists and scientific organisations were not forced to accept and repeat the views of one individual.

    You know, it’s funny. We’re all typing this on computers right now – the product of Western science. Did you know that, right up until the USSR collapsed, they were still using punch cards and mainframes? It’s true. They ran into serious trouble when – I believe it was Latvia (their principal source of punchcard paper) broke away from the Soviety system and stopped sending them paper!

  241. Just when you think Parncutt is just a lone nutter, Mike appears defending him.
    Another one of the self-proclaimed righteous members of the post-modern society.

    You obviously believe the claim that 97% of the scientist believe in CAGW.
    You obviously believe that science is about consensus.
    You obviously believe that the ‘scientific truth’ depends on the scientist’s authority.
    You obviously believe that the planet has been warming in the last 15 years as CO2 has risen.
    You obviously believe that all the projections made by the IPCC have been correct.
    You obviously believe that the IPCC is a group of scientists basing their projections on empirical data.
    You obviously believe that all those who question the science behind CAGW are funded by big oil.
    You obviously believe that all those who question the science behind CAGW have ulterior motives.
    You obviously believe that all those who question the science behind CAGW don’t care about the environment.

    You don’t questions the science behind CAGW or question the motives of those behind the theory.
    You don’t question anything because you are a true believer.
    You ARE right and the others ARE wrong.
    No questions.
    Round up those who don’t think like me and stand in the way of ‘progress’.
    In another time and place you would have been a member of the inquisition, a Lysenkoist, a member of an Einsatzgruppe, the Red Guard or the Khmer Rouge.
    You and Parncutt are extremists.

  242. Mark –
    No, I didn’t actually. The page was 404’ed but I gleaned enough from the fragments to see that a) he was a little over-excited and b) he clearly stated it was a thought experiment. Perhaps I should take a look at one of those archived links. Anyway I didn’t think it was that important – the guy’s just a random Professor at a random university after all, expressing his personal opinions. I find the hysterical tone of this comment thread much more interesting to consider.

    Well let’s see. Hitler was a charismatic politician who rose to power in the mid-twentieth century in part on a platform of ideas including racial purity and Jewish culpability for Germany’s defeat in WWI. The racial science behind Hitler’s ideas has long since been utterly discredited, and in so doing has played an important part in enriching and structuring the ethical and verificational framework of modern science. As for his accusations of Jewish culpability – I suspect that his claims were erroneous, but let’s entertain (even though it’s not very tasteful) the notion that he was actually right. If German Jews had example knowingly sold classified information to the Allies, weakening the German war effort for personal profit, would you argue that such individuals should be considered guilty of crimes against the German state and people?

    Again, this is just for the sake of argument. Of course, we’d rush to disagree with some of Hitler’s extrapolations: that all Jews were equally guilty, that the crime required no proof, that untrustworthiness was an inherently genetic trait, the justifiable punishment, etc. etc. But those were different times, with radically different ideas and issues at play of course.

    You know what, let’s shift to an example closer to home. Let’s say clear evidence emerged that members of the American government and military had colluded with Al-Qaeda and turned a blind eye to the 9/11 plans. Would you consider it justifiable to prosecute those individuals in the American legal system? I imagine you would. Hey, Bradley Manning is currently awaiting trial for roughly-equivalent treason, isn’t he? Perfect illustration.

    Anyway, in comparison, Professor Parncutt is… a Professor at a small university mooting the prosecution of individuals who have disingenuously worked to subvert an effective climate response. He’s not advocating genocide. The only reason anyone here can seem to find why he MIGHT be advocating it is because, lol, he’s Austrian, and… Hitler! Austrians!

    Lol.

    But hey, if we’re going to talk comparisons to Hitler, the heated discussion of AGW as secret eco-conspiracy to enslave the world bears more than a passing resemblance to Hitler’s view of secret Jewish council to enslave the world : ) Elders of Hansen, anyone?

    As to your subsequent points.

    1) No, you should not “just believe what you are told.” You can of course do what you want. But I think it would behoove you, in the interests of human dignity, at this point to consider Occam’s Razor. The scientific establishment – the best apparatus the human race has ever developed for generating reliable, unbiased knowledge – the establishment whose bread and butter is uncovering and eliminating bias! – has unanimously declared climate change to be a fact. This same establishment, joined now by governments and development agencies across the world, not to mention the insurance industry, are also unanimous in the extreme risk posed by climate change.

    So what is more is likely – that all of these organisations are blind, or corrupt, or fronts for a conspiracy – that not a single one of these people has “broken ranks” (well, has done so and withstood scrutiny of their own background, knowledge and motivations, of course :) ); that not one of these people has realised the massive logical flaws that readers of WUWT seem so brilliant at picking up – or perhaps is it more likely that our society is actually, no bullshit, in the midst of creating, as a side-effect of modern technological success, economic growth and emission-happy fossil fuel use, a rather nasty environmental collapse?

    2) Well I for one have had a close look. I’ve read several books, and I have a stack more lined up. And everything I have read discussing AGW sounds perfectly logical and reasonable. Nothing I have read on this site or in other “skeptic” arenas has convinced me otherwise. Of course, it would help if all the arguments thrown around here didn’t bear so much resemblance to other similar anti-science/conspiracy “controversies” (e.g. the anti-evolution debate.)

    3) Never in the history of science have so many scientists worked so hard and so fast and under such pressure to attempt to build up our understanding of the one of the most complicated physical systems we know – the Earth – and never before have the stakes of ignoring their findings been so high.

    There are of course uncertainties in climate predictions. I think you would be surprised if you actually dropped the axe and took an honest, calm look at climate science to see how readily the scientific establishment admits, discusses and targets the uncertainties. It is the nature of science to scrutinise facts so openly.

    The problem people here on this blog seem to have is that sometimes the scientific method produces then confirms in abundance results that people don’t like or want to accept. And then unless someone can raise reasonable objections (which no one has in the field of AGW) the debate moves on. Leaving people like you guys behind crying conspiracy…

    4) It is the nature of AGW that we must act before we have total certainty of the magnitude and certainty of impacts. Firstly, if we waited until we were certain we had to do something, it would be far, far too late. Secondly, our best evidence and predictions indicate the impacts of AGW could be extremely devastating. In situations such as these I certainly believe it is best conservatively to manage the risk. Perhaps it will transpire that we over-reacted. But, considering the positive side-effects an effective climate solution will generate, that will be a benefit, not a negative.

  243. HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

    Curse you, Parncutt! My sides are split wide-open and my stomach feels like it’s done a million sit-ups. Now I’ll never finish wrapping those last few gifts.

  244. RACook –
    1) I like all of those things you are arguing we should have. Except: I would like to do it all while reducing emissions and quickly lowering atmospheric CO2 levels to a safe level. I think that is perfectly possible, it just takes confidence in the human ability to innovate, and the courage to impose a sensible price on greenhouse emissions to incentivise that innovation.

    2) I’m sorry, but you’re simply wrong that there is no evidence of AGW. There is both a clear physical mechanism for CO2-induced warming, and ample evidence of it occurring. Claiming otherwise is just silly.

    3) I never claimed that there might be a better world with higher CO2 levels… it is pretty clear that rising CO2 levels are going to result in extreme damage to the world economy. I’m not sure why you think I said otherwise. What I advocate is economic progress with sane controls on industrial pollution. We’ve achieved it in other areas (despite the constant arguments of targeted industries that it’s too hard, wouldn’t be possible) so why should we believe that humans are so incapable of genius that we can’t tackle CO2 emissions?

    4) I never mentioned 5 degrees. Frankly, I’m not an expert on the probability distributions for various future warming predictions, so I would suggest I’m not the best person to argue this issue with. If you’re interested, I would suggest taking a look at the IPCC summary, or any of the many excellent books discussing AGW available. I’m reading http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Climate-Change/dp/1848365799 at the moment – recommended! Anyway the issue here is not about all the various unexpected things that could happen with AGW – it’s about the large chance that our models tell us we may have of extreme environmental disruption. Let’s say your doctor told you that due to smoking cigarettes you had a 60% chance of developing lung cancer in the next six years – and you could cut that chance to 15% by quitting. What would you do?

    5) Er… no, you haven’t shown that we are “the threat” here. You’ve just yelled a lot, thrown a lot of BLOCK CAPITALS at me, and obsessed over things I didn’t say, lol. Anyway, the threat is runaway climate change caused by fossil fuels, and the issue is how to reduce the chance of, ameliorate and adapt to this threat.

  245. S. Meyer says:

    “How do we defend from this? I think the key is to explain better to the public what scientific thinking is.”

    The problem is that people like Parncutt and Mike are not interested in the science.
    They do not want to discuss the science. They are not interested in the data, the discrepancies in the theory and the scientific process.
    They are political activists and they believe science is a way to initiate political, social and economic change. They believe that science as a social construct .
    Read the following post about the science wars, post-modern science and the precautionary principle.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/climategate-plausibility-and-the-blogosphere-in-the-post-normal-age/

  246. 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.

  247. Parncutt has a Wikipedia page. I tried adding the Webcite text to his Life entry, but could not get past the Spamschutzfilter. Anyone else like to try? It would follow on very nicely from “Richard Parncutt engaged in the fields of intercultural ty, – and racism research and collegiality and academic performance assurance.”

    Parncutt mentions John Sloboda as an advisor. “The opinions expressed on this page are the personal opinions of the author. I thank John Sloboda for suggestions, and further suggestions are welcome.”

    I think it must be this man. Draw a toothbrush moustache on his photo and see what you get.

    http://www.keele.ac.uk/psychology/people/slobodajohn/

    Google Parncutt and you find this:

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=richard+parncutt&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

    And this:

    http://whatmenaresayingaboutwomen.com/2012/12/25/climate-fanatic-herr-professor-richard-parncutt-calls-for-the-execution-of-deniers-desperate-eh-hitler-anyone/

  248. “Mike says:

    December 24, 2012 at 11:32 pm”

    FYI, mainframes are still very much in use today, even punch cards, albeit virtualised. Never mind, you keep on defending people like Parncutt.

    Still waiting for alarmists to demonstrate CO2 is pollution.

  249. I’m no psychiatrist, but I’m surprised this doesn’t happen more often.
    I would argue that Parncutt is a parasite: he produces nothing; no food, no wealth, no technology, no method, no knowledge: nothing. (Perhaps worse – he teaches his subject, creating more useless parasites.)
    Yet he cosumes resources: he lives on the backs of the workers.
    A man with intelligence, a man with a conscience, should be innately aware of his own uselessness, and this in turn should lead to self-loathing, and some destructive pathology.

  250. Other_Andy says:
    December 24, 2012 at 11:33 pm
    Just when you think Parncutt is just a lone nutter, Mike appears defending him.
    Yes, exactly, thanks for posting that. And one can add a lot to the list…
    He obviously believes that Gleick was a hero doing the right thing.
    He obviously believes that models are data.
    He obviously believes that normal humans are not capable of understanding science and that science needs to be interpreted only by the ones who understand how to correctly interpret the signs. The scientific method and argumentation are so much old school.
    “There’s rock-solid evidence for both rising CO2 levels, increasing average temperatures, and
    many of the expected impacts are happening on schedule.”
    He obviously believes the “Frankenstorm theory”.
    He obviously believes satellite temperature data is wrong, but scientist can use thermometers from airport and make just the right corrections to extract the trend that satellites cannot see.
    He obviously believes that ARGO data is wrong and heat has by-passed the ocean surface and the first 700 meters layers to hide like the big monster in the depths just waiting for the right moment to strike on us.
    He obviously believes that activist and payed PR agents have the role to just filter the right science for us to digest. They have no other interest whatsoever.
    He obviously believes that scientists are kind of über-humans, above normal human weaknesses.
    He obviously believes that in the last 200 years human cities heat-island had no influence on the thermometers measuring temperature inside, that the cities temperatures remained constant, that their growth did not increase the heat island, on the contrary even reducing the temperature.
    “There is incontrovertible data to support of warming, and excellent data to support the probability of further warming causing extensive disruption and damage.”
    Incontrovertible where did I heard that word? Was it the reason why Ivar Giaever resigned from APS?
    “I resign from APS,” Giaever wrote.
    Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that “the evidence is incontrovertible.””

    @Mike – if you want to really make yourself an opinion you need to read both sides and try to understand what skeptics say. Just reading one side makes you unable to stand against possible propaganda. Almost all warmista sites are heavily moderated, not allowing for open discussions, are only echo-rooms of the own bias.
    I appreciate open discussions and possibilities to learn from, but I refuse to contribute to a site where open questions or conversations are distorted, where my posts may be edited or dissapeared, where double standards apply.
    So if you want to discuss science try it on skeptic blogs on threads on the respective areas. It is a good opportunity to learn, but don’t come with insults, argument ad hominem, arguments from authority…
    BTW “climate change disputers” is way wrong. Basically I saw climate change disputers on the CAGW sites where 50% believe there are no natural climate changes, that natural climate change is very sloooow and the 0.7 degree change we have seen in a century and half is very fast and much more then anything else and thus not natural. Yeah, speak of climate change disputers… They have mostly no knowledge of Bond events, no understanding of MWP, believe it to be a Greenland anomaly and so on.
    Most of the people here do not buy the “science of catastrophical anthropogenic climate change due to CO2″ – and are very skeptic of its arguments – therefore CAGW-skeptic would be the right word. People here see that there have been some good results in the enriching of the atmosphere with CO2, discussion that is taboo for CAGW sites.

    If you think the position of Richard Parncrutt is defendable you need to explain how can you justify the use of biofuels when there is famine in the world? Those are not theoretical death in the more or less distant future but real death now. You need to explain the death by freezing of fuel poverty and the justification for feed-in tariffs for solar and wind.
    You need also to explain the “death list” at desmo blog and why for example is a person like Donna Laframboise there who only highlighted corruption and wrong processes, or any other science person who has a theory like V. Courtillot or Anthony Watts who only hosted a blog with scientific arguments?

  251. Mike says:
    December 25, 2012 at 1:07 am
    RACook –
    1) I like all of those things you are arguing we should have. Except: I would like to do it all while reducing emissions and quickly lowering atmospheric CO2 levels to a safe level.

    What is safe level?

    http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2012/09/the-photosynthesis-effect.html

    2) I’m sorry, but you’re simply wrong that there is no evidence of AGW. There is both a clear physical mechanism for CO2-induced warming
    well, well, explain further

    3) … it is pretty clear that rising CO2 levels are going to result in extreme damage to the world economy…. What I advocate is economic progress with sane controls on industrial pollution.
    CO2 is not pollution. The current CO2 levels are far away from damaging anything and focusing now on CO2 is routing resources to fight the wrong priorities. The current solutions are far from doing good, on the contrary.

    4) … I would suggest taking a look at the IPCC summary, or any of the many excellent books discussing AGW available. I’m reading http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Climate-Change/dp/1848365799 at the moment – recommended! Anyway the issue here is not about all the various unexpected things that could happen with AGW – it’s about the large chance that our models tell us we may have of extreme environmental disruption. Let’s say your doctor told you that due to smoking cigarettes you had a 60% chance of developing lung cancer in the next six years – and you could cut that chance to 15% by quitting. What would you do?
    There are ample discussions about not only summary but various IPCC chapters on this blog.
    Current models are proven to be wrong – garbage – see the discussions about.
    Let say the doctor tells you that according to his model you should each day let 500g blood out to purify, his model is showing an increased vitality and the model lives 150 years, would you put it in practice without checking the model forecasting? Would you apply any medicine to you based on models that are disproved by real tests?

    5) Er… no, you haven’t shown that we are “the threat” here. You’ve just yelled a lot, thrown a lot of BLOCK CAPITALS at me, and obsessed over things I didn’t say, lol. Anyway, the threat is runaway climate change caused by fossil fuels, and the issue is how to reduce the chance of, ameliorate and adapt to this threat.
    If the medicine prescribed based on a faulty model is proven to do harm, would you still swallow it?

  252. 1st version:
    “At the end of that process, some GW deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed.”

    “I think it is justified for a few heads to roll”

    2nd version:
    “I have consistently opposed the death penalty in every case”

    Must be a new definition of the words “consistently” and “every” that only a Professor of Systematic Musicology understands.

  253. My Christmas open email to the Professor.

    I understand that your university has a faculty for climate study, and thus is economically more less depend on the climate scare, but it still does not explain your almost fascistic views you hold. So I ask you politely to rethink the issue after reading some overviews from dedicated and independent scientists, where after I am almost certain your view will change radically, just as it has happened for so many other people, who have looked into the evidence for them selves, instead of blindly believing in the political correctness.

    The whole email is here: http://klimabedrag.dk/Engelske-indlag/open-email-to-professor-richard-parncutt

  254. “Mike” argues that since nobody has actually been jailed or executed, there’s no need to protest the proposal that they should be. He says that rationalizing the holocaust is distasteful, and then proceeds to try and rationalize the holocaust. He is a distasteful and hate filled troll who has wrapped himself in a cloak of morality while arguing to justify the repetition of history’s darkest moments. The only difference between him and Parncutt is that Parncutt has the balls to write under his own name.

    Until “Mike” grows a similar pair, his posts should be banned.

  255. Mike says: December 25, 2012 at 1:07 am

    “There is both a clear physical mechanism for CO2-induced warming, and ample evidence of it occurring.”

    This is a common error of persons who have swallowed what the media propagates concerning CO2. The absorbency spectrum of CO2 is too slight to achieve significant warming. Indeed, atmospheric CO2 is at saturation with respect to its absorbency, which means that further increments have negligible effect. Doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will result in a theoretical warming of about one degree, but actual temperature records have not supported this theory.
    The real warming, as proposed by AGW theory, comes not from CO2 but from increased atmospheric humidity (water vapor) which AGW says should increase with increasing levels of CO2. So far, water vapor has not increased, according to records that measure this aspect. So, for the last sixteen years CO2 has increased, but water vapor has not, and temperature has not and indeed, the last ten years have shown a cooling trend. It is time to re-evaluate AGW theory, don’t you think?
    You don’t have to be a genius to figure this out. You do need to learn to think for yourself, however, and this is the tough part for most people.
    Regarding the “evidence” that warming is occurring, there is none. The claims of the AGW proponents is based on a theory unsupported by evidence. The “evidence” hype is another myth that gets propagated in popular media and swallowed by gullible types. In fact, the evidence shows otherwise: the last warming trend ended sixteen years ago, and the last ten years show cooling, and this trend is expected to continue indefinitely. So ask yourself “Is this global warming?” That is the first step toward achieving understanding.
    How does one achieve independent thought? The key is to not let yourself get frightened. The terrible, frightening things that you hear about in the media sells newspapers, it sells soap, but it does not foster critical thought because one can’t think too well when one is frightened. Think of a cattle stampede.

    It is not good for the globe to be cooling. Here is the truth: warming is entirely beneficial; it is cooling that holds dire consequences for the human race, and for life in general. Atmospheric CO2 is beneficial: it is the foundation of life and makes green things grow. Just don’t believe the panic talk you hear and consider whether or not you wish to run with the herd.
    Cheers mpainter

  256. Mike, I can’t for the love of Christ understand, what makes you come here to defend a person you don’t even know? Explain it to me, please. Here we have a person who thinks and writes that we here are bigger criminals than Breivik – and your first instinct is to defend him.

  257. Mike says:
    December 25, 2012 at 1:07 am
    “2) I’m sorry, but you’re simply wrong that there is no evidence of AGW. There is both a clear physical mechanism for CO2-induced warming, and ample evidence of it occurring. Claiming otherwise is just silly.”

    Pressure broadening of CO2 absorption lines does happen, but the assumption that this must lead to an ever growing temperature rise on Earth is silly, as the Earth’s atmosphere has obvious means of cooling itself via increased convection. It is a dynamic homeostatic system. Attempts at modeling it have failed so far.

    Statistical analysis shows that a rise in CO2 cannot Granger-cause a temperature rise.

    http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf

    (Warming causes a rise in CO2, CO2 rise potentially causes a warming – but the first causation is 10 times stronger (through outgassing) – so isn’t it a bit idiotic under these circumstances to say CO2 causes warming? Which is, again, maybe because the causation in the other direction is 10 times stronger, not evident in the statistics.)

    http://motls.blogspot.de/2012/07/land-biospheres-absorption-of-co2.html

    As for the “ample evidence” of “AGW” occuring: If you are talking about an increase intemperatures, that is just that – evidence for WARMING, not for ANTROPOGENIC warming. Long term warming looks the same since 1840. Where’s the acceleration of warming? No evidence of AGW.

  258. Perry says:
    December 25, 2012 at 1:31 am

    Parncutt mentions John Sloboda as an advisor. “The opinions expressed on this page are the personal opinions of the author. I thank John Sloboda for suggestions, and further suggestions are welcome.”

    I think it must be this man. Draw a toothbrush moustache on his photo and see what you get.

    http://www.keele.ac.uk/psychology/people/slobodajohn/

    ——————————————————

    Ha ha ha. I think you just proved that the purported and bogus Godwin’s Law is well past its expiry date.

  259. 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.

  260. Dang, sorry mods – missing tag on my last post: Here tis again, hopefully more readable if you could delete the previous:

    Mike says: December 25, 2012 at 12:52 am [in blockquotes below]

    No, I didn’t [read Richard Parncutt’s “solution”] actually. …… Perhaps I should take a look at one of those archived links. Anyway I didn’t think it was that important …..

    Well. With all due respect, you probably should try doing that if you wish to begin to understand the response. Beside his basic “final solution” the absolute disdain for logic or in understanding statistics does not paint him as a terribly intelligent man: He said: “….. 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….”

    It does not quite work like that, Richard. If you are wrong, you are wrong, you don’t end up magically being 10% right. And even if there were a 90% chance climate scientists would be wrong (and some of the worst case scenarios ARE labelled by the IPCC with a 10% probability of occurring!) then people will still be regarded as wrong and STILL be deemed guilty and sentenced??!

    … Hitler [……] If German Jews had example knowingly sold classified information to the Allies, weakening the German war effort for personal profit, would you argue that such individuals should be considered guilty of crimes against the German state and people?

    A fascinating example of the antics of the “rule following ape” that we really are. Here you cite something that was a great wrong at the time, and that in retrospect we can see was great wrong and an abomination in every way. Yet you justify the actions that were taken then because “those were the rules” and “those were the guys in charge”. I fearfully doubt your moral character and your ability to think logically. I even suspect and fear I may be conversing with Richard “Final Solution” Parncutt! Surely there cannot be two such people on the planet!! (Ah… but I dramatise and jest, Mike … there are unfortunately many of you).

    The scientific establishment – the best apparatus the human race has ever developed for generating reliable, unbiased knowledge – the establishment whose bread and butter is uncovering and eliminating bias! – has unanimously declared climate change to be a fact. This same establishment, joined now by governments and development agencies across the world, not to mention the insurance industry, are also unanimous in the extreme risk posed by climate change.

    You get what you fund, and you fund what matches your policy. This takes no conspiracy; governments, NGOs, international organisations live and exist for the opportunity to regulate, fund, tax and bureaucratise. Do you really think some young, up and coming PHD student is going to get any funding for putting up a proposal to disprove any aspect of “the theory”? Do you think anyone is going to put forward such a proposal?

    Unanimously declared? What exactly? That the world is warming over the recent half century? Well, yes, largely agreed upon. That mankind is contributing? Yep, mostly agreed upon. That the contribution of mankind is significant? Ah, now we hear some dissent and see a lot of ‘umming and ahhing’. That mankind is the major contributor? A tentative“maybe”.

    And the Insurance Industry? Really? No chance of self interest there?

    There are of course uncertainties in climate predictions. I think you would be surprised if you actually dropped the axe and took an honest, calm look at climate science to see how readily the scientific establishment admits, discusses and targets the uncertainties. It is the nature of science to scrutinise facts so openly.

    I am not surprised at all, because I read the scientific literature. As much of it as I get time to, as soon as it comes out. Mentions of uncertainty, modelling and adjustments are everywhere, but we don’t see that in the headlines, do we?

    Very early on (when I was a believer …!) I turned to articles on the TOA radiation deficit (what more ironclad proof could one seek? Let’s see our measures of incoming vs outgoing radiation?)

    Loeb etal 2009 J. Climate, 22, 748–766

    CERES satellite data measuring incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere show an imbalance of 6.4 W m2. The absorption spectrum of CO2 is that shows a doubling CO2 would account for only 3.4 W m2.

    But, from the ‘known’ amount of recent global warming the amount of energy imbalance ‘required’ is estimated to be ONLY 0.85 ± 0.15 W m2 (Hansen et al. (2005)).

    “… uses an objective constrainment algorithm to adjust SW and LW TOA fluxes .. to remove .. inconsistency between average global net TOA flux and heat storage in the earth–atmosphere system.”

    In other words – satellite data is not precise and calibration processes are based on modelling to provide the expected figures… which are in turn quoted as ‘proof’ by other modellers.

    How about our much vaunted satellite measurements of sea level rise? Umm, it has problems too, to the extent they want/need/propose the launching of another satellite. Read all about the problems, uncertainties and proposals right here: http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/GRASP_COSPAR_paper.pdf
    (and hey, those guys ain’t gonna speak up if they think there is no looming disaster are they? No probability of catastrophe, no funding, no job….)

    … sometimes the scientific method produces then confirms in abundance results that people don’t like or want to accept. …

    So we are bombarded with “proof” that requires “leaps of logic”: ie Superstorm Sandy: (No cites required I guess). Logic flow: Warms seas create hurricanes. Seas were warm. A hurricane occurred. It is obvious to all that warmer waters will make hurricanes worse. Therefore this is proof of global warming.

    Then they tell us it was “unprecedented”… um, that is unprecedented since…..um …..the last time it happened: from The Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science:

    The historical record shows that there have been other hurricanes to affect the northeastern United States. Notable examples include Hurricane Donna of 1960, Hurricane Carol of 1954, the Great New England Hurricane of 1938, the New York Hurricane of 1893, and the Norfolk and Long Island Hurricane of 1821. While these hurricanes have been classified as being fully tropical, it is difficult to know for sure about those that occurred during the pre-satellite era. Limited data we have suggests that the 1938 hurricane was perhaps an event similar to Sandy in terms of baroclinic enhancement of a tropical system. In either case, a “Sandy-like” event appears to occur no more than once every 50-100 years. http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/blog/2012/10/31/just-how-unprecedented-was-hurricane-sandy/

    Here is another dramatically headlined story taken at face value by people who fail to read in detail:

    http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=1976

    Headlined “First evidence of ocean acidification affecting live marine creatures in the Southern Ocean” … but this not quite what the original article was about:
    Extensive dissolution of live pteropods in the Southern Ocean by N. Bednaršek, G. A. Tarling, D. C. E. Bakker, S. Fielding, E. M. Jones, H. J. Venables, P. Ward, A.Kuzirian, B. Lézé, R. A. Feely, and E. H. Murphy is published in the journal Nature Geoscience.
    This is simply a beat up about a natural phenomenon. Calcite shells cannot exist under certain conditions of depth/pressure/ temperature. When natural upwellings of this water occur, it damages shells in the upper layers. They harvested some of these shells, took photos and then did some modelling and “proved” the rather obvious fact this will be more likely to occur in a more acidic ocean. (Yep, both upwellings and ‘dissolving shells’ are completely natural phenomena. Read up on Calcite Compensation Depth) (Wiki will suffice, here is a quote for you):
    “….Calcite compensation depth (CCD) is the depth in the oceans […about 4000 meters..] below which the rate of supply of calcite (calcium carbonate) lags behind the rate of solvation, such that no calcite is preserved. Aragonite compensation depth (hence ACD) describes the same behaviour in reference to aragonitic carbonates.Calcium carbonate is essentially insoluble in sea surface waters ……. [….] Calcium carbonate is more soluble at lower temperatures and at higher pressures. It is also more soluble if the concentration of dissolved CO2 is higher. [….]….”

    ….So what is more is likely – that all of these organisations are blind, or corrupt, or fronts for a conspiracy – that not a single one of these people has “broken ranks” …

    There are few scientists who try to encompass the “whole spectrum of the debate”. Most stick to their own areas of expertise, pursue the funding which is available, and make sure they have a summary paragraph in there which says something along the lines of “…and the situation can be expected to be much worse/better/more intense/less intense later according to forecast AGW predictions…” . Look closely, you will see it everywhere. You may see it as acceptance of the theory; I see it as people paying “lip service” to the system they are dealing with. (ref your comments on Hitler above).

    …..It is the nature of AGW that we must act before we have total certainty of the magnitude and certainty of impacts. Firstly, if we waited until we were certain we had to do something, it would be far, far too late. Secondly, our best evidence and predictions indicate the impacts of AGW could be extremely devastating…….

    ie: Do something! Do ANYTHING! But do it now!

    I support the effort that goes into developing new and more efficient energy policies, although I do decry the fact political machinations and vote seeking are driving an illogical early move to crop derived fuels.

    I fully support all the effort and new technology that is going into measuring ocean temperatures, sea level changes, ice changes, atmospheric changes etc etc etc, (and you may ask yourself why scientist deem such research necessary if they already know enough about what is happening) and respect the fact that scientists need to generate a certain amount of drama to attract funding from politicians who have wars to prosecute, their friends to look after, and their own pockets and political legacy foremost in their minds.

    Currently scientists have a reasonably plausible theory to pursue, and they are very obviously in the early stages of gathering data.

    The discussion and pursuit of answers is not helped by the unfortunate side effect of the dramatic approach which was to produce a baying mass of “noble cause devotees” whose almost religious fervour and systems of programmed belief do much to prevent a normal discussion being pursued.

  261. Just curious, as an interested observer, if instead of death to “deniers,” he had said death to Arabs or Muslims or Jews or gypsies, etc., in the form of state executions, would he still be walking around free in Europe?

  262. Mike is ‘permutising’
    i.e. mistaking considering every possibility under the sun for rational thought

    He is like the fellow at the pub quiz. The qustion is , ‘what is the capital of Mongolia ?’
    The other members of the team bow their heads and rack their brains
    Mike shouts out ‘Dniep, Sevastopol, Bejing’
    ‘Canberra, Kiev, Ulan Bator’
    ‘London, Paris, Rome’

    When the answer comes – ‘Ulan Bator’
    He proudly says – ‘I got that’

    except he did not.

    just because it is possible to imagine something, does not make it worthy of attention

    his thought experiments might have a use, but not here. not now. They lack judgement and they lack a point. They lack effectiveness and most of all, they dont score a point in the quiz

  263. Oh don’t worry too much about this fellow. He couldn’t kill my Grandmother (not least because she died 10 years ago). He is an over-educated arsenugget. I emailed him with an invitation to a fight here in North Wales but elicited no response.

    Nothing to fret about, just a routine [trimmed]head.

    A Happy New Year to Anthony and all.

    Am I on the death list yet ?

  264. Unfortunately I can’t continue this lovely discussion. Two of my subsequent responses have apparently been rejected by the moderators. Under these circumstances, where faithful WUWT commenters may slander and disparage opponents freely, while those who calmly attempt to counter their arguments are muzzled, I have no choice but to take my ball and go play somewhere else.

    Enjoy your echo-chamber.

  265. Jim says:
    December 24, 2012 at 5:55 pm
    Not EVERYTHING is a part of some GRAND con-spir-acy; perhaps someday God in his wisdom will grant you the maturity and grace to see that as well …

    Where did I say that everything is a part of some con-spir-acy? Putting your words into my mouth in order to ingratiate yourself with infantile admonitions about maturity? How senile of you.

  266. You know, I’m jut sitting here thinking through the practical aspects of Parncutt/Mike’s Final Solution. Lets assume there are a few hundred million deniers, denier sympathizers, family members, etc. on the planet. One of the challenges to the Final Solution will be how to handle the corpses in a sanitary manner so as not to risk the potential of spreading disease among the virtuous non-deniers who remain. Clearly, incineration is the only large scale, tested solution. But here’s a point that I think Mike has missed — the particulate matter generated from the incineration will be a powerful negative forcing. In fact, it would probably offset the effect of 10s of trillions of tons of carbon. So I think Mike has missed an important point in his argument. If, in the abundance of caution, we knew that incinerating 100s of million of deniers could avert a climate catastrophic, why wouldn’t we at least try it? After all, who could argue with the logic of the precautionary principle?

  267. Mike says: December 25, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    “….Unfortunately I can’t continue this lovely discussion. …”

    Sigh….. I’m missing Mike. Such an easy and voluminous target. ;-)

    But really, jokes aside, and without knowing what really occurred, it is a pity if he was indeed moderated out of here. He has obviously put a lot of time and effort into his replies and I do appreciate those who make an effort to discuss all points put up in debate.

    The same has happened to me on several CAGW sites (ie, moderated out or banned), and we do end up with this strange system of “one-sided debates”.

    [Not mod’ed out. Mod]

  268. Parncutt says:

    “To protect future generations, our legal systems urgently need extension. They should include measures to protect future generations. Exactly what penalties should be applied in what situation is a question that is beyond my expertise. I have no expertise in international law or criminal law. But I can imagine that it might be legitimate to consider the question of the death penalty in such discussions – at least as an extreme with which other more moderate penalties can be compared. It might also be interesting to consider the power of different kinds of penalties as deterrents. The primary aim should not be to punish a small number of individuals (in the sense of exacting revenge). The primarily aim should be to prevent serious consequences for a very large number.”

    Would this also include people/authorities/govn’ts who force other people off their lands in favour of growing food for fuel? You don’t seem to know too much and yet you would consider the death penalty to be considered in “extreme” cases.

    “In closing, let me repeat that I am in general opposed to the death penalty in every case. I am also very concerned that global warming is threatening the quality of life of billions of future people, and the lives of hundreds of millions. I often worry about this problem and I wish I had a good solution. For me, the discussion about global warming is not an abstract discussion about how much snow there will be when I want to go skiing in Austria, or how long heat waves will last when I am with my family in Australia. It is a matter of life and death, for millions of people. We should have the courage to treat it as such.”

    If you are so worried about global warming then I put it to you there are thousands of subsistance farmers in Ethiopia, right now, not able to feed themselves or their families because of people like you. I put it to you that everyone one of them would swap their lives for yours in the blink of an eye. I notice you are quite happy to talk about skiing in Austria and being with family in Australia, regardless of the weather, so much for your concern about CO2 emissions. I wonder if you are the sort who thinks their movements smell like rosebuds!

  269. Mike says:
    December 25, 2012 at 3:59 pm
    Unfortunately I can’t continue this lovely discussion. Two of my subsequent responses have apparently been rejected by the moderators. Under these circumstances, where faithful WUWT commenters may slander and disparage opponents freely, while those who calmly attempt to counter their arguments are muzzled, I have no choice but to take my ball and go play somewhere else.
    ———————–

    Yeah, good idea. Keep telling your Mom and your Granny what a brilliant scientist you are.

    They won’t give you the @$$-kicking you got on here.

  270. 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 bigoted fascist views without retracting them only confirms my evaluation.

  271. Excellent point Patrick, let those who know, so much better that us, how we should live our lives, practise the alternatives they propose.I am sure the Ethiopians would volunteer in droves to swap lifestyles with these lovely posers. Bet yah no planet savers will volunteer though.
    As for Mike, just put your name to your opinion comrade as I am not opposed to the dangerously stupid getting what they earn.Right Mike the bravely anonymous?

  272. The world has seen enough of large wars. They often start from extreme, opposing views, when one wonders if getting together for calm rational discourse ought be tried first. (There is no need to allude to Chamberlain with a piece of paper, “Peace in our times”, we all know that example). My younger brother volunteered for Vietnam on the condition that rules be bent to allow him to take his personal high quality sniper rifle, and I was once in the Air Force, so I am not wet behind the ears about warfare. It killed my brother.

    At its heart, we have here a long standing problem often seen in planning, be it in war or peace. In short, it is imperfect information and it awaits a solution. Bloggers here, self included, await the Steve Mc engineering quality prooof of the credible effect of GHG in the air. BUT, such a paper has not been written by anyone on any side of the debate. Prof Parncutt has justification to fall short of complete trust in skepticism for non-delivery, ditto reverse.

    The physics of musicology is not entirely divorced from climate change physics. There are concepts like repetition, wave forms, harmonics, distortions, probably much more, in common. A person with degrees in physics and music is not disqualified from comment any more than some who write here. It is also within the proper exercise of science to allow explanation of findings, though taking them too far into the socio/political mix is not often a good scientific idea. The biggest brawls are happening among those who try this.

    If we want to reduce brawling and replace it with analysis and deduction, we have to have a discussion basis. You do not make it easy when you insult. You should start from an assumption such as “This person has read something he regards as most serious and in need of attention. Is it not a good idea to see if the statement and his interpretation was correct?” The problem could, at very best, be solved by some calm discussion. This is particularly so if a moderator lived through the Cuban missile crisis at an age when fear of mass destruction went from fairy book to diary.

    In no way do I criticise Anthony for having a point of view on global warming so strong that he has done what he has for the past several years. I am merely pointing to the possibility that Prof Parncutt has had a strong motivational experience also, but in a different direction. Imperfect information strikes again. Indeed, his information is rather the stronger of the two, leading to more extreme expression.

    Please do try for reconciliation of ideas before the witch hunt approach. Doing so enhances the quality of a discussion or a blog, as several times Anthony has done this to his benefit.

    I do not endorse the strength of Prof Parncutt’s expression, nor do I agree with his mathematical assumptions. Hovever, in the calm of boxing day, I have to admit to a small possibility that his scenario on climate could unfold and that I too have an occasional tug on the heart when I think of the future of a grandson who is not yet 2. We critics might be confusing genuine concern with the literary shock of hearing it expressed as it is.

  273. Before Mr U of Graz smokes “skeptics” or “deniers” perhaps he should stop smoking so much grass.

    Threatening mass executions to cold war era, university technical postgraduates based on pseudoscience sounds insanely empty so many ways… Go ahead, make my day. LOLRoF

  274. Ah here I fear I may seem as if I completely disregard your thoughts. I do respect them, but….

    Geoff Sherrington says: December 25, 2012 at 9:52 pm

    “…I am merely pointing to the possibility that Prof Parncutt has had a strong motivational experience also, but in a different direction. Imperfect information strikes again….”

    I don’t mean to sound abrupt, and your basic premise may be correct, but Parncutt managed to jump in with a particularly obscene and ill-thought out and ill-worded extreme viewpoint.

    It is pretty hard to use Parncutt’s original essay as a platform to plead for fairness and tolerance in this, or any civilized debate.

    If he has in fact had experiences which have driven him to that extreme, I suggest he seeks PTSD psychological counseling and treatment, rather than involve himself in public debate.

  275. Mark –
    Thanks for saying that. I’m not sure if it was mod action or if there was some fault, but regardless, after losing two large replies, combined with the rather extreme reaction challenging the WUWT consensus provokes, and the looming spectre of mods vetting every comment,[every comment is vetted on this site for breaches of the rules not for content or opinion . . mod] means for me it is simply too tiring to continue trying to debate on this site. On a highly ideological site such as WUWT, an opaque system of mod-vetting is just too claustrophobic for anyone straying from the party line. Especially when any comment supporting the scientific community provokes such a barrage of comments,[being concerned about the return comments is fine but fair game. As for ideological, no moderating is done on such grounds . . mod] and my own preference is to calmly walk through every response, one by one.

    Oh well. Btw, if this bothers you Mark, perhaps you’d be interested in requesting change. Me, I think a Hackernews or Ars Technica-style upvote/downvote system would be better.

    And for [snip . . you read the site rules and by posting you agreed to abide by them . . mod] sake, stop censoring the word “d—-l.” Lol…

    [If you post replies with words like “deniers”, “nazi”, “Hitler”, “fraud”, “conspiracy”, multiple links and the like your post will go into the spam bin for moderator attention. Lots of posts go into the spam bin for these and other reasons to do with bogus adress, jumbled words, and so on. many posters become frustrated with the length of time their posts spend in the spam bin but we have a work load and a process. Virtually all , with the exception of direct attacks on our host and similar, are dealt with by a moderator and put up regardless of content or accuracy. This is because we moderate lightly in the interests of encouraging robust debate and because that is what our host , Mr. A watts, requires of us. Those personally attacking Mr. Watts are left for him to deal with as he sees fit and I have never seen him do this out of the public eye.

    I have noticed a few posters who claim to have been banned or that their post has been deleted and so on. These claims are without basis. The only time people are banned or put on a period of suspension is when they have egregiously transgressed the site rules and have been warned , in public view, that this punishment is approaching initially and then activated when the poster refuses to change their ways. I note you like to swear hence the snip. Don’t swear, most folk here don’t like it and Mr. Watts says it is forbidden so stop it.

    If you have problems with being attacked by the denizens of this site then “tough luck buddy” we have all experienced that here and elsewhere and take it as the rough and tumble of blog commentary. . . thank you . . mod]

  276. Mike says: December 26, 2012 at 1:16 am

    “…. after losing two large replies…”

    I find this happens reasonably frequently on many of these blogs, seemingly more so with large replies with numerous links (yeah, the ones we put the most work into)…. I suspect the fault could lies anywhere in between our own computers and the server.

    If you are using Mozilla, Lazarus is brilliant – gets em back about 90% of the time:

    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/lazarus-form-recovery/

    I imagine there are equivalents out there for other browsers.

  277. @ Mike says:
    December 24, 2012 at 7:13 pm
    Parncutt said
    ‘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’
    Mike said
    ‘this post was clearly only a thought experiment – not a call for executions’

    Oh! I get it Mike,they just get ‘sentenced’ to death but not actually executed
    The rest of your tantrum shows complete ignorance of science and what this blog is all about.
    My sincere apologies if you are an atmospheric physicist.

  278. Mike,
    You say: “it is…..too tiring to continue… the debate on this site”.
    You are saving the human race and it is “too tiring”?
    You love no one enough to continue to try to save them?
    You need to keep the good fight up Mike. This is serious business.

    If you do change your mind and come back here; I haven’t read on this subject very much, like you have, and I was wondering if you could tell me what the ideal temperature of the earth should be? And, what it might cost us to get the temperature from where we are, to what it is suppose to be. In the last 2 years or so, I have simply been unable to find answers to these two questions.
    Thank You,
    RR

  279. Parncutt has now reposted his essay but says he is against the death penalty in every case now, including the Pope and A. Watts and me.

    It turns out he is also for Limits To Freedom Of Speech.(as he says here.

    So we don’t know if he REALLY does not want to execute us anymore – but we can say that he doesn’t express it anymore but says he wants “a debate”.

    So… A debate with a guy who tells you that he will express his opinion only tactically? :-)
    Why does this remind me of a 1,400 year old ideology that was quite successful using the same apporach? :-)

  280. Ron Richey says:
    December 26, 2012 at 7:04 am
    “Mike,
    […]
    If you do change your mind and come back here; I haven’t read on this subject very much, like you have, and I was wondering if you could tell me what the ideal temperature of the earth should be? ”

    Maybe Mike should first state the statistical basis for computing an average temperature of the Earth.
    Because you can’t just average temperatures. They’re not normally distributed, so a simple averaging won’t give you a meaningful answer. (Law Of Large Numbers doesn’t apply.)

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/do-temperatures-have-a-mean/

  281. Mike says:
    December 24, 2012 at 7:13 pm
    “On the other end of the scale, small fry such as the average WUWT commenter are probably not responsible for much damage individually, and are mostly I am sure really convinced of their delusions.”

    Mike, thank you for not wanting to execute me. I appreciate it.

  282. Mike says:
    December 24, 2012 at 7:13 pm
    I think it is perfectly reasonable to punish individuals in these cases – individuals who have knowingly, cynically acted to damage society.
    Interesting. So, what punishments would you propose for the Alarmists, including so-called “scientists” like Mann and Hansen, and the high-profile activists like Gore who have consistently misinformed, misrepresented and lied, in their efforts to keeping the great CAGW/CC gravy train going, to the great detriment of all of humanity? Fuel poverty alone, resulting from forcing energy prices up by punishing “carbon” has likely been a factor in millions of deaths worldwide already. How many more millions of deaths will your side be responsible for before Climate Realists/Skeptics manage to stop you? Despite this, no one on the Skeptic side has ever suggested that the death penalty might be an appropriate punishment for those on your side guilty of serial lying. That alone should tell you something.

  283. Make no mistake about what Professor Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz is saying. He explicitly supports killing independent scientific critics of the research used to promote CAGW.

    I think he intends to intellectually aid in and condone the killings he advocated.

    It is important to sustain high level public exposure of such intellectual advocates of killing scientists. So expose Professor Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz who is influencing generations of students with their ideas supporting the killing of scientists.

    John

  284. The ultimate goal of course, of Parncutt and his ilk is to silence Skeptics/Climate Realists. He, and his apologists like the foam-at-the-mouth troll “mike” can try to hide behind the “thought experiment” excuse all they want. The intent is chillingly clear. The comparison to Orwell’s 1984 comes to mind, and is an apt one. The road he and his brethren wishes to follow can only lead to tyranny.

  285. I’am often in Austria and a lot of people there are very fanatic concerning the item “global warming”. If you don’t agree with them you will certainly have “streit'; and don’t absolutely talk about nuclear energy, then they become really angry. They are quite indoctrinated there without knowing anything about climate history and the actual stabilisation/cooling. They simply don’t believe you: Dass is nicht moglich en du kanst dass nicht wissen Henk. This professor is one of these fools.

  286. Geoff Sherrington says:
    December 25, 2012 at 9:52 pm
    ……….
    At its heart, we have here a long standing problem often seen in planning, be it in war or peace. In short, it is imperfect information and it awaits a solution. Bloggers here, self included, await the Steve Mc engineering quality prooof of the credible effect of GHG in the air. BUT, such a paper has not been written by anyone on any side of the debate. Prof Parncutt has justification to fall short of complete trust in skepticism for non-delivery, ditto reverse.

    One get studied what one pays for. The skeptics are mostly simple persons who do the investigation for free in their free time. So are you asking them to balance the many billion+ funding on global warming?
    When skeptics checked the data from the measurement stations they found a high percentage not conforming their own standards. The 4 billion state founded organisation did not do it, or even thanked the skeptics for their efforts.

    http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php

    The volunteers found that the science is wrong, now you, as concerned citizen what do you do and whom do you ask to correct?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

    The models are wrong – you can read the interview from Jo Nova here and watch the discussion with the evidence:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/abc-doco-uncut-evans-nova-minchin-and-rose-the-full-unedited-video/

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/documentary/i-can-change-your-mind/transcript-of-broadcast.docx

    I do not endorse the strength of Prof Parncutt’s expression, nor do I agree with his mathematical assumptions. Hovever, in the calm of boxing day, I have to admit to a small possibility that his scenario on climate could unfold and that I too have an occasional tug on the heart when I think of the future of a grandson who is not yet 2. We critics might be confusing genuine concern with the literary shock of hearing it expressed as it is.

    Well, Geoff, from the content I would say you seem very new to the debate.
    First, for a discussion there must be two, and it is not the skeptics who do not want to debate science.
    The alarmist say “the debate is over”, however there has been no debate.
    More, they try to shut the debate by calling skeptics “deniers” bulying: “we know who you are, we know where you live”? Who is being accused of conspirancy theories? (see Lew papers) And many more. Have you not seen or heard about this?
    Who is fabulating here about how to execute “deniers”? Here an excerpt from the text. Pls read it carefully:
    “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.”

    On the other side who is turning food into fuel? Do we have over production of food on this world? These death are of no concern? Is there no relationship?
    Who is increasing cost of energy artificially? Do we have ensured that the basic needs of energy are covered to keep warm and cook on this world?

    Are these not points of concern?
    I think we might need to properly discuss these concerns and the whole theory.
    Is there any urgency? What do the data – not the models – say? According to data there is no urgency, so we have time to get proper science in place.
    How good are the models validated? Not good? Why not correct the models?
    And to ask to have the debate to be called a denier?
    To point to faulty data adjustments and to errors – is this a crime?
    To point out that part of the food is due to CO2 enrichment – is this a crime?
    So, I am not sure, what are you asking for Geoff?

  287. Now admittedly most of these planet savers are using bluff and bluster to quell dissent, but from history and human nature I am quite sure that left unchecked these types decent into atrocity with very little encouragement.
    Look to your small time bully and on to your empire building crazies, politeness is weakness, silence is agreement and considering them foolish loonies is taken as support.
    On the bright side they fear everything and ridicule with truth strips them of their self-delusions .(Temporarily that is).
    They have a tedious propensity for violence against any who question them, for to doubt their belief is to attack them personally, these are very weak characters, which is why they cower from direct conversation with capable people, engage via anonymous attacks and love meetings that resemble circle jerks. As packs of beta dogs they attempt to howl down any and all inquiries into their misery.
    What always amuses me , is their surprise when more normal people lose patience with their idiocy, its as if they live in a fantasy world in which they, exclusively, have the monopoly on rage, savagery and the urge to destroy identified threats.
    The old joke, civilization(Beauty) is only skin deep, Ugly goes all the way to the bone.
    2012 is ending with great amusement, bring on 2013.

  288. Har har just read his updated , replacement article, so now amnesty international is a terrorist organization?
    The fine professor is so proud of being a member and claims the group supports his vision.
    Whats with these turkeys? Laws apply to all, does he want the same concepts applied to himself and his child-terrorizing friends?

  289. The only safe thing to do is to defund everything related to the pseudo-climate rort

    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 climate 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 sceptics?

    I think that you would agree with me that Auschwitz has to be the preferred option in terms of efficient operations, 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 inoffensive look and wimpy persona that will calm new arrivals. Perhaps as a musicologist you could suggest suitable music to be played as each trainload of new arrivals pulls into the station?

    Might I suggest that you wear white gloves (they will neatly contrast the inevitable black uniform trimmed with silver braid) as you will want to ensure you keep your hands clean from any unpleasantness that occurs from any sceptics who resist?

    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 play in your mind.

    I have included my name so you can call on me to discuss your proposal first hand. Please come ‘prepared’. I look forward to meeting you.

  290. There ought to be notice underneath the “Leave a Reply” heading that warns commenters that their posts will take a while to appear, and that, for some unknown reason, some comment-submissions will not be followed by an acknowledgment message–but they haven’t been lost.

  291. [snip – if you want to label people deniers, do it somewhere else, WUWT is not obligated to publish your opinions when laced with ugly labeling -mod]

  292. Gail Combs says of me on December 24, 2012 at 1:58 am
    “You are either very young or very sheltered.”
    Gail, I am 71.5 years, a modestly successful scientist (geochemistry) and a retired poerson now with an interest in the philosophy of communication of science. As you age, our thinking might will converge.

  293. Fars P suggests I must be very new to the debate.
    ………………………………
    Lars, I was working with Warwick Hughes in 1992 or so when Phil Jones refused data on the grounds that Warwick wanted to find fault with it. I’ve a collection of personal emails with Phil Jones startring around 2006. I’ve made submissions to Climategate Inquiries. I have author privileges kindly granted by Joanne of the Jo Nova blog and have had numerous comments on Climate Audit’ WUWT, Bishop Hil and the like, the first starting about 2005.
    Perhaps you are the newbie not to have known this.
    …………………………….
    I can abbreviate my argument in light terms by analogy. Suppose a patient in a hospital, in a fit of dislexia, misinterpreted overheard doctor’s advice “He’ll feel better once you prick his boil”. The patient, armed with imperfect information, might well act in manner that many would regard as irrational. As to whether he is normally pleasant, personable, cultured or whatever we might not know, because fear can cause deep irrationality and we might not be seeing the usual self.
    In the present instance, if Prof Parncutt was under a delusion from imperfect information, a rapid reversal might be possible once the information was corrected. People are being judgmental before they have established the background matter, which is another way to say that people are being unscientific.
    The gentle lesson I am trying to make is akin to “Make love, not war”. I’m not a commie sympathiser off the McCarthy list who is defending the language and methods promoted by the Prof. I’m merely suggesting that we all study the evidence before being wise on it.
    You might quickly reinforce your first impressions, but would it not be great if there could be a less emotional move to common ground?
    I think that gifted writers like Anthony and Steve McIntyre and Willis Eschenbach and many others try for the common ground and that is why they are so widely respected and liked.
    What is more, i defy anyone with small children or grandchildren to confess here in public that they have never had a nagging thought like “What if the establishment is right on several projections of major disaster”.

  294. Surprise, surprise! I never had a nagging thought like “What if the establishment is right on several projections of major disaster”. I know the facts, and the facts don’t leave any doubt as to the mendacious and corrupt character of the global worming campaign.

    My nagging thought is “What if the establishment is on the right track to produce several major disasters?” In some situations (when you have bankrupted your country, for example) nothing beats a major disaster as a means to prop up your power.

    Geoff Sherrington, your motto (“Make love, not war”) is a hippie-hollow concept of a man who has lived a very sheltered life, indeed. Didactic peacemakers usually come from well-to-do families, or have been in a secure academic position so long they forgot what life is about.

    Peacemaking leads to disasters. Look at multiple disasters the UN has wrought all over the planet. Current never-ending war in the Middle East is the direct result of the imbecilic pacifist ideology that prevailed in the League of Nations. World War II was a direct result of a complete misunderstanding of the situation in Germany by the peace-loving, well-wishing degenerate elites in other major European countries. The fact that the world was not prepared to prevent the nightmare that followed is entirely on the pacifists’ conscience.

    What works in real life is the ancient Roman principle: paritur pax bello (“peace is prepared by war”or “make war if you want peace” — depending on your translation preferences).

    You think this approach is “counter-intuitive” or “illogical” somehow? Take a trip to North Korea, Geoff, and spend a couple of years there. I bet you $1000 you’d sing a different song after returning (if you ever return).

  295. TBear, If you mean me, you might well be correct, just as you are sure you are correct about Prof Parncutt. First though, you need to assemble proof and have it peer reviewed.
    I’m sorry to try to promote some difficult variations. I know some graduates from Armidale University, which has long had a record for graduating ladies and gentlemen of honour. Some I know have been awarded civil honours, doing global voluntary work while well into their retirement. I respect that conduct greatly.
    It is illogical to assume that all graduates are the same as some top graduates, but in this case I exercise some caution and pay respect to the institution that has earned it, while noting that barrels can hold bad apples.

    • Geoff,

      While you may have lived many years, you appear to have not lived a lot of life. It is practically impossible to gently correct misinformation when the person with the misinformation wants you DEAD. By your reasoning, Chamberlain had the right idea – we should have reasoned more with Hitler instead of fighting a war. After all, his only problem was incomplete information, right?

  296. War is hell. Frankly, I don’t care what Parncutt’s motivations are or were for saying what he did. Nor do I care about how uninformed he is, which is a given. His insanity is simply part of a mass psychosis. Those in Academia simply seem to be more susceptible to it.
    Time and again, the enemy have shown their true colors. Their hatred of those standing in the way of what can only be described as the most monstrous, most egregious, and most destructive lie ever foisted is boundless.
    Thanks to Mother Nature, true science is winning, but it will take much, much more to win against the lies which have become institutionalized. These Climate Wars are far from over, I’m afraid.

  297. Geoff Sherrington says: December 27, 2012 at 12:09 am

    “…..a nagging thought like “What if the establishment is right on several projections of major disaster”….”

    That is no reason to be leaping to broad ranging, global “solutions” with probably huge and largely unknown political and economic effects. Which will add to the power base of doubtful organizations such as the UN and the World Bank. When we very obviously don’t yet understand the systems we are dealing with.

    At the rate and precision data is now being collected I’m pretty sure we will have a much better idea of what is happening, and why it is happening within a few decades.

    The doom-sayers may even turn out to be correct. Although (given all the propaganda type science stories), it truly would be a travesty.

    But, if that should be the case I am very confident a world population armed with all (well, more of) the facts will very quickly come up with practical solutions.

  298. Does not this oh-so-systematic musicologist realize that when communo-fascist thugs march forth, he will be among the very first to fall? But there is ample precedent: Think Keith Farnish, Kentti Linkola, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber– as baleful and bitter a crew of hollow men as ever T.S. Eliot or Eric Hoffer have conceived. Why Parncutt or his excrescent soul-mates think that halfway decent, ordinary citizens will stand defenseless in face of his homicidal, psychopathic fantasies remains a mystery.

  299. UofGraz HAS responded and it’s a VERY ENCOURAGING sign. hats off to UofGraz….

    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.

    Helmut Konrad
    Dean, Faculty of Humanities and the Arts

    Reads the english portion

    Look forward to the breakdown and discussion when the more experienced WUWT contributors on the email list have a chance at it. :)

  300. University of Graz Responds!

    I sent a rather firm letter to the University which is reproduced upthread. I didn’t expect a response, but I got one. I reproduce their response here:

    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.

    Helmut Konrad
    Dean, Faculty of Humanities and the Arts

  301. I got this email from University of Graz today:

    […]

    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.

    Helmut Konrad

    Dean, Faculty of Humanities and the Arts

  302. Geoff Sherrington says:
    December 27, 2012 at 12:09 am
    […]
    The gentle lesson I am trying to make is akin to “Make love, not war”. I’m not a commie sympathiser off the McCarthy list who is defending the language and methods promoted by the Prof. I’m merely suggesting that we all study the evidence before being wise on it.

    You are wisely asking wether one should or should not be tolerant towards the intolerant. There are two answers and nome is nice and you know them.

    What is more, i defy anyone with small children or grandchildren to confess here in public that they have never had a nagging thought like “What if the establishment is right on several projections of major disaster”.

    Hipotetical questions allow anything to be as if true. I have children and I care for their future. Having long analysed the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming conjecture (for it is not even an hypothesis), I do not even have a nagging doubt that it stands or not. It doesn’t, and is an epic failure.

    Currently, the political consequences of CACGW are terrible, and based on a conjecture whose forecasts have been proveniente consistently false.

    Therefore, having children and caring for their future, and having further looked upon the atrocious consequences of suffering and misery for mankind that are already resulting from acting upon such conjecture, I find it my moral duty to fight it by resorting to logic and empirical data and common, good sense.

  303. Geoff Sherrington says:
    December 27, 2012 at 12:09 am
    …..
    I see your point Geoff. From this point of view, I am new to the debate… & also understand your “make love not war” philosophy.
    As most of the current skeptics I also trusted the global warming theory in the beginning, to discover slowly that there are more and more holes in the theory.
    I also watched the transformation of the CAGW in more of a religious cult. This becomes obvious to anybody who follows up the debate for a certain period of time. Not sure if you draw the same conclusions.
    Many people are alienated by the lack of openness and lack of use of the scientific method.
    The solutions proposed do not make sense for me, the medicine is not well engineered. It is not the proper way to reduce CO2 output and not the proper way to address the conversation.
    As the bandwagon was already moving a too gentle push back would be simply ignored.
    In this particular case I found David M Hoffer took the right actions.
    I am confident that the estimations still exaggerate the influence of CO2, I am displeased to see the holier then you attitude displayed by many warmista on which basis they allow themselves to break rules that would be very dramatically addressed if these would be broken by the other side, by the skeptics.
    I know I am not telling you new things as you have been here since 2 decades.

    Meanwhile Josualdo answered also your post above and I would say that my position is much aligned to what he said, therefore to not duplicate I would point to his answer above:
    Josualdo says:
    December 27, 2012 at 12:28 pm

  304. Martin van Etten says:
    December 24, 2012 at 6:31 am
    personally I also use desmogblog, scepticalscience, thinkprogress and even realclimate as (respected) references;
    ———————–
    How about letting me know when they do something respectful. I’ll check them out.
    cn

  305. TonyG says:
    December 24, 2012 at 7:19 am
    Gail Combs says:
    I am not at all surprised.

    It was only a matter of time before we saw this type of insanity raise its head. Lewandowsky set the stage, Robyn Williams of the ABC took it a step further and now Parncutt is sending up the next trial balloon. Each time another line will be crossed until we are afraid to mention our disbelief in CAGW for fear of physical retaliation.

    I fear that someone may actually take it upon themselves to act on these “ideas” at some point. What happens then?

    I agree – Anthony, Steve, Willis, etc – be careful.
    ——————————————————————————-

    Don’t forget it’s against the law to say you had to raise your prices because of the mandated Julia tax on cah-bin.
    Another line crossed.
    cn

  306. Fortunately, The original page was grabbed by Google Cache and hasn’t vanished yet, so here is the URL …. save that page as an “MHT” archive or whatever….

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rqQOIJaq-HkJ:www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/climatechange.html+http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/climatechange.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

    ——
    Here is the actual text on that cache page in case it vanished away ….
    Death penalty for global warming deniers?
    An objective argument…a conservative conclusion
    last updated 25 October 2012

    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.

    Some accounts are clearly exaggerated (more). But 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%.

    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 (more). Even if that does not happen, thousands of plants and animals will become extinct. Islands, shorelines and coastal communities will disappear.

    So far, the political response to the threat of GW has been lots of talk and little action (more). 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?

    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. 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.

    Of course it is possible that scientists are just making it up for their own benefit. The trouble with that argument is that scientists who publish fake data or deliberately set out to mislead people about GW have a lot to lose and nothing to win. When scientists fake data and are caught, that usually means the end of their career. It’s not the kind of risk that a scientist would like to take. It is possible someone is paying the scientists behind the scences to publish environmental doomsday stories, but again the argument is problematic: there is simply no money in environmental doomsday stories (just like there is no money in writing internet pages like this one). And here is why: It has been clear for a long time that the cost of reducing GW to a manageable amount (whatever that is) will be enormous, and the costs incurred by not doing that or doing it too late will be many times greater. The main problem is that no-one wants to pay this money. As a rule, those who make money out of ignoring GW would rather leave this problem for our children and grandchildren to deal with. (How kind of them!) In this situation, a corrupt scientist can certainly earn a lot of money by publishing research that plays down the importance of GW, so that those who profit from ignoring it can continue their environmentally unfriendly activities – and presumably many scientists have already done so. But there is no money in publishing the uncomfortable truth about GW, except for the ordinary rewards that ordinary scientists get for publishing good research reports.

    The problem gets even more uncomfortable when you consider the broader context. Even without GW (or ignoring the small amount that has happened so far), a billion people are living in poverty right now. Every five seconds a child is dying of hunger (more).The United Nations and diverse NGOs are trying to solve this problem, and making some progress. But political forces in the other direction are stronger. The strongest of these political forces is GW denial.

    The death penalty

    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.

    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.

    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.

    My estimate of “hundreds of millions” 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. 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. 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. As a rule that depends only on the quality of the research. Third, the authors of different studies are generally working independently of each other in different countries, universities and disciplines. If so many unbiased people independently come to a similar conclusion, the probability that that conclusion is wrong is negligible.

    For decades, the tobacco lobby denied that cigarette smoking was linked to cancer, at the same time as countless research projects were presenting evidence to the contrary. How many deaths did tobacco denialism cause? Globally, lung cancer due to smoking claims one million lives per year. A significant proportion of these deaths is due to tobacco denialists who slowed attempts to slow down the rate of smoking. Those individuals may individually be responsible for tens or even hundreds of thousands of deaths.

    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. More generally, I propose that we limit the death penalty to people whose actions will with a high probability cause millions of future deaths

    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) 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.

    From this example, it is clear that there is a dividing line somewhere between murders for which the death penalty is appropriate and murders for which it is inappropriate. I am proposing to make that dividing line concrete at about one million people. I wish to claim that it is generally ok to kill someone in order to save one million people. Similarly, the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for GW deniers who are so influential that one million future deaths can with high probability be traced to their personal actions. Please note also that I am only talking about prevention of future deaths – not punishment or revenge after the event.

    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. I am talking about the current Pope, because his continuing refusal to make a significant change to the church’s position on contraception (more) will certainly result in millions of further unnecessary deaths from AIDS in the future. Since many of these deaths could be prevented relatively easily simply by changing the position of the Catholic church, which incidentally is one of the most influential political powers in Africa and elsewhere, we are talking about something remarkably similar to premeditated mass murder. Not the same, because the church does not want the affected people to die. But the numbers of people involved are so enormous that at some level it doesn’t matter any more whether the murder is premeditated or not. The position of the church is presumably also racist: if those dying from AIDS were not predominately black, the church would presumably have changed its position on contraception long ago. Just imagine 30 million white people dying from AIDS in Europe or North America, and you will see what I mean.

    What about holocaust deniers? The Nazi holocaust was the worst crime in human history, for two reasons: the enormous number of murdered people and the automation of the murder process. Those who deny the holocaust certainly belong behind bars. The death penalty would be too much for them, because holocaust deniers are not directly causing the deaths of other people. The holocaust is in the past, not the future. Those who died in the holocaust cannot be brought back to life.

    Counterarguments

    In self defence, both the Catholic church and the GW deniers would point out straight away that they don’t intend to kill anyone. The Catholic church is merely of the opinion that contraception is generally a bad thing. The GW deniers are simply of the opinion that the GW scientists are wrong. Both groups are enjoying their freedom of speech and perhaps they sincerely believe what they are claiming. They can certainly cite lots of evidence (you can find evidence for just about anything if you look hard enough).

    Another counterargument is that we can never be sure that the predicted GW will happen, or that its effects will be as severe as predicted. But this is not a strong argument. The courts are used to dealing with uncertainty. Even at the conclusion of a murder trial, there is generally some remaining uncertainty about the guilt of the accused, even if the court pretends that there is not. Courts must rely on eye-witness reports, but memories can be distorted and witnesses can have ulterior motives. That is why there are so many reports of executions of innocent people. In the case of GW, the case is clearer. Even if the prediction of hundreds of millions of deaths turns out to be exaggerated, the more moderate prediction of tens of millions will not.

    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”. The number that the Catholics are playing with are an order of magnitude smaller, but still horrendously large. Since these figures exceed the arbitrary limit of one million that I am proposing, it follows that the death penalty might be an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers and possibly also the Pope. It also follows for example that George W. Bush and Tony Blair should not face the death penalty for the Iraq war, since it “only” claimed about 100 000 lives since 2003 (more).

    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.

    Lawyers will see this situation differently, of course. According to current law you cannot exact a criminal sentence of murder on someone for deaths that have not yet happened, and might not happen if – despite GW deniers – governments and people act to stop GW. Even conspiracy to murder depends on intent to murder, which clearly does not exist in this case. Then there is the question of in which judicial system someone could be tried and prosecuted. Given that the alleged victims of the criminal act are not confined to the country in which the GW denier lives, but are all over the world, then only an international court (perhaps the International Criminal Court) would do. I guess that right now there is no existing law, either national or international, under which such a prosecution could be pursued. Given the overriding importance of GW (just about everything else that we hold dear depends on it), I am proposing with this text a legal change that will make the criminal trial of GW deniers possible.

    In such a trial, ignorance of scientific research would be no excuse. There is clear evidence that unprotected sex is causing the deaths of ten millions, and that GW deniers are causing the deaths of hundreds of millions. This evidence is freely available and constantly in the media. If the legal change that I am envisaging comes about, a future court of law will not accept the claim that the culprits simply did not know about this research.

    Consequences

    If my argument is correct, it has clear political consequences. Here is a scenario for what might happen if my argument is broadly accepted, both democratically and politically.
    The universal declaration of human rights and every national constitution would be amended to include the rights of future generations. Incidentally, that would also make national debts illegal, because they oblige future generations to pay them. Getting rid of national debts would in turn solve an important aspect of the “global financial crisis” (more), which currently belongs to the list of common excuses for not investing money in the prevention of GW.
    The proposed legal change would be announced and widely publicized for an extended period before it came into force. During that time, GW deniers would have a chance to change their ways and escape punishment.
    The police would start to identify the most influential GW deniers who had not responded to the changed legal situation. These individuals would then be charged and brought to justice.

    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.

    Outlook

    Right now, in the year 2012, these ideas will seem quite crazy to most people. People will be saying that Parncutt has finally lost it. But there is already enough evidence on the table to allow me to make the following prediction: 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. Who knows, perhaps the Pope would even turn me into a saint. Presumably there will still be a Pope, and maybe by then he will even have realised that condoms are not such a bad thing! And by the way 2050 is rather soon. Most people reading this text will still be alive then.

    I don’t want to be a saint. I would just like my grandchildren and great grandchildren, and the human race in general, to enjoy the world that I have enjoyed, as much as I have enjoyed it. And to achieve that goal I think it is justified for a few heads to roll. Does that make me crazy? I don’t think so. I am certainly far less crazy than those people today who are in favor of the death penalty for everyday cases of murder, in my opinion. And like them I have freedom of speech, which is a very valuable thing.

    This page is inspired by the project Establishing Crimes Against Future Generations by the World Future Council. Please support the work of the World Future Council!

    The opinions expressed on this page are the personal opinions of the author. I thank John Sloboda for suggestions, and further suggestions are welcome. _____________________________________________________________________________
    Richard Parncutt, Centre for Systematic Musicology, Faculty of Humanities, University of Graz

  307. Welcome climate skeptics to the world of REVISIONISM where for over decades we have had to endure the likes of Richard Parncutt because we dare to challenge, among other things, the official Holocaust-Shoah narrative, demanding that basic physical facts be proven and not be given legal protection.
    We are howled down not by factual argument but by name-calling – ‘hater’, ‘Holocaust denier’, ‘antisemite’, ‘racist’, ‘Nazi’, etc. now even ‘terrorist’.
    If that doesn’t shut us up, we are then taken to court and fined, imprisoned, bankrupted and otherwise ‘stopped from functioning’.
    If that doesn’t shut us up, then it’s accidents that happen –
    So, stay strong and retain your love of truth and open enquiry.

    Dr Fredrick Toben, Adelaide, Australia

Comments are closed.