[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)
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!
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 @ur momisugly$$-kicking you got on here.
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.
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?
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.
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
They spent a lot of money on the idea of killing us:
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.
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]
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
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
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? 🙂
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/
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
[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]