[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.
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.
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.
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.
The guy should be sent to the nearest lunatic asylum,
and Mike, you can be his cellmate… Enjoy,. !!
Professor poindexter would like to, save our future offspring by killing the parents of our future offspring. Sweet bejeezus.
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.]
“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
Feel free to comment directly on the Universitys Facebook Site.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Karl-Franzens-Universit%C3%A4t-Graz/165356123490562
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 : )
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.
“Andi Cockroft says:
December 24, 2012 at 10:06 am”
Churchill was also a strong believer in Eugenics too.
Mike says:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
I must be punch-drunk from wrapping presents & reading this – someone posted his email address and I actually wrote & sent this:
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.
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/