[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
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)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Austria, failed artist, Grand Schemes including killing lots of people. It doesn´t sound like a good idea.
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.
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…
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.
This bloke is another example of a particularly nasty sub-species of Warmist:
the Aussie Hate Academic.
Parncutt, Lewandowsky, Karoly…
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
davidmhoffer says:
December 24, 2012 at 1:29 pm
……….
Thanks David for taking action and the very calm but firm letter!
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.
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. 🙂
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.
.
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):
http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/3691/vizextremeweather.png
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.
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.
Parncutt’s proposal is eerily reminiscent of the ideas of another Austrian, from the first half of the 20th century…
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 ??