UPDATE: 2PM PST After more complaints were lodged today by WUWT readers about the watered down version of Parncutt’s essay which had replaced the original on the University of Graz website, it was removed and replaced with an apology. See below in the body of the story. – Anthony
UPDATE2: 2:55:PM PST In an email received today from Skeptical Science contributor Dana Nuccitelli, he has flat out refused to distance himself or the SkS website publicly from the Parncutt essay. Readers may recall that Parncutt used SkS as a reference in his essay calling for the death penalty. No word yet on whether John Cook (owner of the website) agrees and no word yet from DeSmog blog. – Anthony
Readers may recall this particular bit of ugliness: Beyond bizarre: University of Graz music professor calls for skeptic death sentences
David M. Hoffer writes in comments:
=============================
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 and rejects its arguments entirely. The University places considerable importance on respecting all human rights and does not accept inhuman statements. Furthermore, the University of Graz points out clearly that a personal and individual opinion which is not related to scientific work cannot be tolerated on websites of the University.
Helmut Konrad
Dean, Faculty of Humanities and the Arts
===========================
Here is Hoffer’s letter to the University of Graz:
I’ve sent the rector a complaint as worded below. Should I receive a reply (I know, unlikely) I will post it here as well:
I [am] 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. – David M. Hoffer
===============================
I checked to make certain he is a representative of the university. He is listed on the University of Graz website here.
We are still waiting for DeSmog Blog and “Skeptical Science” to disavow this man’s ideas, since he lists them as references in his hate speech essay. The original is archived 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)
One final note, Helmut Konrad in his statement says:
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.
Despite that, Parncutt’s watered down opinion (changed after the uproar) still exists on the University of Graz website as seen here:
http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/climatechange.html
Perhaps Herr Konrad should be reminded of what he wrote. His email is on his University page here.
UPDATE: WUWT readers get results. After more complaints were lodged today by WUWT readers about the watered down version (PDF here) of Parncutt’s essay which had replaced the original, it was removed and replaced with an apology. It seems Monckton of Brenchley was instrumental in the about-face. This is what is there now:
Global warming
I wish to apologize publicly to all those who were offended by texts that were previously posted at this address. I made claims that were incorrect and comparisons that were completely inappropriate, which I deeply regret. I would also like to thank all those who took the time and trouble to share their thoughts in emails.
In October 2012, I wrote the following on this page: “I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake.” I wish to confirm that this is indeed my opinion. I have been a member of Amnesty International for at least 14 years, and I admire and support their consistent stance on this issue.
Richard Parncutt, 27 December 2012
The opinions expressed on this page are the personal opinions of the author.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So, um, they’re going to give him a stiff talking to?
Good response from the University. Sure, he’ll get a stiff talking to. Fire him and you send him directly into the arms of fellow extremists. It is better that he become somewhat of a social pariah and then can come to understand his untenable stance.
I may be missing something obvious, but why is the thing still available at the first link?
REPLY: Because what is there now is a highly edited watered down version – Anthony
Of course the poor sod is entitled to express his opinion however odious but he should not claim special knowledge by using his title Professor outside his professed field nor implicate his University by posting on its web site. I do think he needs help but, after reading the Gummer narrative, I think he may not be alone in that. But how does one give them help without infringing the very axioms of freedom of expression?
They could always send him for a bit of re-education! 🙂
“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.”
Even a casual acquaintance with the WUWT heroes is a complete honor.
Wishing you all the Best and for a Happy New Year!!!
I particularly liked the comment about burning food while millions starve. I see hundreds of acres of corn in the Shenandoah Valley grown specifically for ethanol. You can’t blame the farmers. They are having a hard enough time to survive. But you can blame government policies that make make it more more profitable to grow fuel instead of food.
We will never be able to count the deaths caused and lives saved by this policy. But the deaths caused are now and certain and the lives saved are future and uncertain.
Only time will tell how it affects his promotion prospects.
We are still waiting for DeSmog Blog and “Skeptical Science” to disavow this man’s ideas. Wouldn’t it be more effective to simply ignore him completely? Why would you want to give his article further publicity?
@cui bono
Parncutt could be sacked over this, tenure or not.
In any case, t is not good when the head of school and the vice-chancellor publicly distance themselves from a professor, and over the Christmas holidays at that.
John Sutcliffe says:
December 27, 2012 at 11:43 am
We are still waiting for DeSmog Blog and “Skeptical Science” to disavow this man’s ideas. Wouldn’t it be more effective to simply ignore him completely? Why would you want to give his article further publicity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because evil grows in the dark.
So, from what I understand, the good professor Richard Parncutt, professor of musicology (whatever the hell that is) at the rip roaringly batty, University of Gaz, in calling for the execution of climate change ‘deniers’ had this to say:
” I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases…”
So, Rick, are you opposed to the death penalty in all cases except when you’re not opposed to the death penalty in all cases? So, are there actually ‘some’ cases that do not fit the definition of ‘all’ cases? Is ‘all’ a limiting word? Or, is it an unlimiting word? Or, is the definition changed when it’s preceded by the word ‘always?’ Or, are ‘always’ and ‘all’ magnetic words, but one’s positive, the other negative, so they repel each other? Therefore, neither of them mean anything? Or, are they mysterious, magical words? Words that can be honest. Or deceptive. And it’s not true that they don’t mean anything. They just mean something other than what they mean. Parallel universe words? Tell me Rick, you deep thinker you, you paragon of wisdom, tell me, what do they mean?
cui bono says: “So, um, they’re going to give him a stiff talking to?”
They’ve already eliminated Parncutt’s blatherings from their website and made it clear that they condemn his arguments. I’m not sure he has a position of any tenure; last I heard, he was a sort of visiting professor. Thus their authority to do any more is uncertain. I don’t think it’s productive to expect or endorse any further action by the University at this time. He seems to have had serious personnel issues in the past, and I suspect he may already be viewed as a loose cannon there. Let’s not give away any of the moral high ground by ill-considered calls for dismissal or suggestions that he be hoist by his own petard.
Don’t be so precious. Sure what he wrote is offensive but you guys are the ones that rejoice in the 1st Amendment. People should lose their jobs for expressing their opinions only in the most extreme circumstances. Otherwise the USA is no better than other totalitarian states.
John Sutcliffe says:
December 27, 2012 at 11:43 am
“Wouldn’t it be more effective to simply ignore him completely? Why would you want to give his article further publicity?”
Or, we could also ignore professional tenured crackpot ethicists…
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=6047
http://ethics-etc.com/category/environmental-ethics/
Maybe they’ll become nice fellows if we ignore them enough!
Before we discuss the death penalty for certain groups of people, should we not have a discussion as to whether or not ALL letters of CAGW are in fact true? I would suggest a good place to start would be to have a debate between Christopher Monckton and Al Gore.
“which is not related to scientific work cannot be tolerated on websites of the University.”
add , “in that specific discipline”
psycho musicologists, psychologists, arts professors etc etc… SHOULD NOT be making any sort of opinion statement on the Uni web site that are not related totally to their specific subject.
Considering Desmogblog was built around the writings of US anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan, whose 2004 “Boiling Point” book’s chapter 3 is titled “Criminals against Humanity”, it is doubtful Desmog would forcefully disavow Parncutt’s ideas out of a plausible fear that he might point to exactly where he got those ideas from.
“I am not one of those who “deny” the science of global warming, in fact the opposite.”
Sorry. Bugs me. I don’t know many who do deny it. Indirectly, he’s validating the term.
I’ve sent them a response as follows:
Konrad,
I would like to thank you for your clear and firm response on the matter.
However, I note that while the ugly remarks originally made by Parncutt have since been removed, they have been replaced. The current commentary, while more subtle, nonetheless proposes that punishment be meted out to those who have a specific opinion on the science, and that the death penalty should at least be considered as part of the range of options. Parncutt’s statement in his preamble that he is against the death penalty hardly rings true in that context. Further, your policy, as articulated in your reply to me, reads:
“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.”
Parncutt’s statement as it currently stands on your web site hardly meets that standard. As a consequence, I regard your reply and the steps you have publicly taken in dealing with this matter to be inadequate.
Regards,
David M. Hoffer
Like the inventor of the guillotine who found it cut their own head off just as easily as anyone else, those making these silly comments to “cut off their heads” are likely to be setting the seeds of intolerance which champions their own demise.
The heavily watered down version has since been replaced by an actual apology by Parncutt.
I was considering what Dean Konrad wrote about the publishing of personal opinions on the U web site, as davidmhoffer also notes. But you cant have it all I guess.
Re: AllanJ –Where exactly in the US are farmers having a hard time “surviving?” They have had record income the last few years; farm land values have more than doubled in the last 4 years; they are the “wealthiest” group in the US, exceeding doctors, lawyers, CPA’s, dentists, etc.
[quite probably, but how about a link rather than just an assertion? . . thanks . . mod]
Oh! Looks like Herr Konrad is making good on his sentiments. I see that the watered down version of the Parncutt screed has been replaced with an apology.