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.
Might I point out that this odious character Parncutt (according to Wiki) is in fact Australian NOT Austrian, and comes from Melbourne?
I imagine they are intensely embarrassed in Graz, and I will be surprised if this ends here.
Well done dmh, for chasing it up so successfully!
Well, he’s apologised for some very nasty (but also childish and naive) comments, so I think we should leave him alone now and get on with seeing if DeSmugBlag and NotVerySkepticalLackofScience are prepared to condemn his initial comments.
It would be interesting to see how they react as I believe we should keep calling out these human-hating ‘activists’ to expose their nasty side to the world.
Over to you John Cook…..
I’m a bit rusty at reading German, but that first sentence strikes me as quite strongly worded. Helmut Konrad’s response is quite refreshing when compared to the mealy-mouthed white-washes that periodically come out of the Marxist leaning US educational institutions.
David, I thank you again for the clear, unambiguous and well formulated letter and for taking the needed action.
You have been perfectly right in putting the beams on showing to everybody what was crawling under the stone and demanding that the proper actions are taken!
federico says:
December 27, 2012 at 12:59 pm
“Parncutt has some tradition in asking for executions. Look in Wikipedia and here:”
The text in which he called for the execution of CO2AGW doubters was also the one in which he expressed the desire to kill the pope. In the case of the pope because the catholic church opposes contraceptive measures.
Parncutt’s basic idea was to execute people who cause the death of future people; an idea he might have gotten from “Minority Report”; he seems to think that climate models are like the precogs in the Phil Dick short story / movie; a fallacy that is popular amongst the mathematically challenged populous.
In the case of the pope, not even computer models are needed as it is to Parncutt obvious that the pope causes the death of future people.
(I’m referring to Parncutt Mk 1; not to the later revisions of his work)
@John Hultquist
Tenure means that you have a permanent position. That is, you no longer have to prove yourself in front of a (re-)hiring committee.
Gross misconduct, malfeasance, and a failure to perform agreed duties are grounds for dismissal, tenured or not, in the USA and elsewhere.
Arthur Dent says:
December 27, 2012 at 12:16 pm
“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. ”
Appeals to execute people not enough? What’s extreme enough? When he demands lengthy torture, Dark Ages viking style? Please explain.
Covering themselves and nothing more
Jim Cripwell says
You may have to if you have of these characters sneaking in by the back door.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/john-gummer-and-the-world-future-council/
Richard Parncutt has replaced his “Global warming” post by the following apology:
Well done, David M Hoffer.
Every result of this type is much appreciated by many.
While what got all the attention was the “death penalty”, what I find most interesting is the new notion that we can prosecute people for future victims “probably” caused by present actions, or even more indirectly by legal political speech and action preventing adoption of policies which “probably” would have prevented them. Let us suppose Mitt Romney had won the last election and let us suppose he appointed Cabinet members who were not believers in CAGW scenarios. Just who would the criminals be? Romney? His cabinet members? The voters who put them there? So many potential villians to select from.
We have gotten freedom of speech so turned upside down in the US and elsewhere that we have forgotten entirely its original purpose. Even (especially?) our courts are confused: they have ruled that nude dancing is “protected freedom of expression”, as are spoiled celebrities public use of vulgar, obscene and profane language. And yet criticizing certain protected classes may be deemed “hate speech” and prosecuted.
The US Constitution has a First Amendment precisely to protect people who criticize the government, its elected and appointed officials and its policies. And to guarantee those people the right to communicate with others and to organize legal actions to change the government’s policies, including replacing elected officials.
In the history of civilization, it only took three thousand years or so before ordinary citizens anywhere had this right and a few thousand more before it was common; you’d think there would be more awareness of just how precious it is. Yet we tolerate cossetted academics living off the public purse casually demanding that right be abridged not for actual demonstrated damages, but for some model projection of what damages might result.
There is a word to describe the unjustified belief you know more than you really do: arrogance. But for the supreme arrogance of believing you know what is most likely unknowable we have to turn to Greek: hubris.
Professor Parncutt is part of the herd mentality academic totalitarians who would gleefuly take from others the very freedoms to whcih they owe their priviliged existence. Regardless of competance in his academic discipline he should be firmly but non-violently shown the door. Maybe if he spends some time mucking out barns for a living, he will learn to spot Bulls**t when he sees it, and especially when it comes out if his own mouth.
“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.”
Don’t hold your breath. Skeptical Science for one is actively promoting the meme being a denier is crime against humanity in itself. Make no mistake, google finds 3,730 references to the concept at that site. True, most of them are in comments, but I have first hand experience with moderation policy there and can tell you John Cook and his ilk would hardly tolerate so many comments going against their genuine world view.
Therefore they would never ever “disavow this man’s ideas” until they disavow their own.
” Arthur Dent says:
December 27, 2012 at 12:16 pm
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 . Otherwise the USA is no better than other totalitarian states. ”
Parncutt’s vicious justification for the exemplary execution of “prominent” dissenters, presumably to provide a deterrent for the rest of us not to express dissenting positions against the prevailing hegemony of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hyposthesis, was published throughout the world. As such his word act comes within the jurisdictions where it was published, including in his homeland Australia. In Australia what he wrote comes close to a threat of terrorism, which can be roughly and relevantly defined as a threat or an act of violence for political purposes. He does have some defences to such a charge. In addition in Australia we do not have an absolute right to express thought. Parncutt, an Australian, did not just express an “opinion”. He mounted a full blown argument for exemplary and targeted killing for a political purpose.
The silence of the warmist nomenklature in Australia ( a vast heaving bureaucracy and network of jobbing scientists, financial shifters and shafters, propagandists and political opportunists) in regard to condeming Parncutt is a national disgrace.
I wonder how much of Parncutt’s apology was dictated to him by his university?
“Alan Watt, CD (Certified Denialist), Level 7 says:
December 27, 2012 at 2:30 pm”
Well said.
On the basis of Parrncuttlogic/ Greenspeak anyone could justify killing anyone for anything.
We have gone through so much in order to create a relatively civilised template in a few nations that we then have to put up with that sort of destructive ignorance at the heart of our establishments?
Beyond belief.
Apology/disclaimer – hardly a true apology.
Ray
johnb says:
December 27, 2012 at 12:50 pm
It is obvious that farming is far from being a field in which you have any expertise.
The statistics at the preceding URL show that the vast majority of farm household income does come from off-farm income sources.
The situation is no better anywhere in the world. It certainly was no better when I farmed, in Canada. During many years I lost money. There was not a year, ever, when my average income (after expenses) came even close to average minimum wage rates. It was my off-farm job that kept our farm going — that, and the fact that I did all of of the repairing and construction work that needed to be done (on average, one hour of field work required two hours of swearing and repairing).
More than 50 percent of Canada’s farmers have major, off-farm employment, and the average age of Canadian farmers is about 67 (about 20 years ago it was 62 years).
However, if you think that farming is such a profitable endeavor, why don’t you get yourself a farm and get set for life? The very least you will get out of that is a good education.
losing his tenure is not an option when it comes to CAGW zealots. btw here’s another moving into the limelight:
27 Dec: WaPo The Fix Blog: Sean Sullivan: Who is Brian Schatz?
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) tapped Lt. Gov. Brian Schatz (D) on Wednesday to fill late Sen. Daniel Inouye’s (D) seat…
After college, Schatz returned to Hawaii, where he briefly taught at Punahou and worked in the nonprofit sector. His Punahou alumni profile says he founded the nonprofit Youth for Environmental Service…
Schatz may also emerge as a vocal senator on the issue of climate change. Abercrombie tapped him to lead a clean energy effort as lieutenant governor. He called climate change “the most urgent challenge of our generation” in remarks on Wednesday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/27/who-is-brian-schatz/
Parncutts statement is even more unbelievable reading that he is a member of Amnesty International. I’m amazed that someone can truly believe that the death penalty is wrong in all cases and then advocate its use against people for their beliefs.
I’m glad that WUWT readers and others were able to get the university to take action and send such a clear statement.
“I wish to apologize publicly to all those who were offended ….”
Here in UK, the common politician-speak along the lines of “If anyone was offended, I apologise to them…” is known as a non-apology apology. Or in other words, I’m not apologising for my sentiments, only for the fact that it might have upset some of you.
Congratulations to Jo Nova, to Anthony and to everyone who wrote to Professor Parncutt and to the University of Graz. This is actually an important victory, because it establishes that skeptics can no longer be treated with the utter contempt that has been evident in some quarters – and particularly in academe – for far too long.
In my submission, now that the Professor has made an unconditional apology, and provided that he and his university have indeed removed the offending postings, we should regard the matter as closed.
My correspondence with him and with the office of the Rektorin of the University of Graz follows.
Subject: Death penalty for legitimate scientific dissent
.oOo.
Monckton of Brenchley to Parncutt
Dear Professor Parncutt, – The unhappy history of Austria under the Anschluss should surely lead one to consider the unwisdom of demanding death for those scientists and researchers who today legitimately dissent from the apocalypticist notion that our altering 1/3000 of the atmosphere by 2100 will lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.
May I ask you publicly to withdraw your dangerous and offensive demand? Otherwise, the law of Austria – designed precisely to avoid a repeat of the murderous, anti-scientific approach adopted by the National Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany, an approach that you now unspeakably revive – will have to be brought to bear, and you will be prosecuted for your hate-crime.
Since an image of your offending statement was cached before your University realized that you had committed a crime and ordered you to remove your poisonous demand from its website, the evidence against you is clear.
A complaint will go to the Austrian prosecuting authorities unless you are able to notify me within 14 days that you have extinguished your crime by withdrawing your call for the death penalty for the likes of me. – Monckton of Brenchley
.oOo.
Parncutt to Monckton
Dear Sir, – Thank you for your message. In response to this and other emails i have completely rewritten my posting. I hope that you prefer the new version. Yours sincerely, – Richard Parncutt
.oOo.
Monckton to Parncutt
Dear Professor Parncutt, – I regret that your new posting does not withdraw but instead repeats your unspeakable suggestion of the death penalty for those with whom (on no discernible ground that would be recognized as scientific) you disagree on the question of the climate.
However, I gave you 14 days publicly to withdraw that suggestion, of which 10 days remain. After that, a report will go via Interpol and separately via the British Embassy in Wien to the Austrian prosecuting authorities, with a copy to the Rektorin of your University, to whose office I am copying this correspondence by way of early notice.
I am also having the question whether your murderous, anti-scientific hate-crime constitutes an offence under the law of Australia, your state of origin, and whether your hate-crime – as an incitement to terrorism – is an offence grave enough to merit trial by the International Criminal Court, to whose founding treaty both Austria and Australia are States Parties.
I have also asked for a review of the question whether your university and your Rektorin, in continuing – astonishingly – to host this criminal matter on the official website even after several people have drawn your hate-crime explicitly to the Rektorin’s attention in writing, may be acting as conspirators with you in this hate-crime. It will surely be in your interest, and in the interest of your university, to reconsider this matter. – Monckton of Brenchley
.oOo.
Parncutt to Monckton
Dear Sir,
In response to your email I have now posted an unconditional apology at the address of the original text: http://www.uni-graz.at/~parncutt/climatechange.html
I hereby withdraw, in their entirety, both texts that were previously posted at the above address (dated 25 October 2012 and 25 December 2012 respectively). I apologize for, and deeply regret, any offence that my texts may have caused to you or anyone else.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Parncutt
.oOo.
Monckton to Parncutt
Dear Professor Parncutt, – Thank you very much for your unconditional apology and for your entire withdrawal of both versions of your posting. The matter is now closed. – Monckton of Brenchley
Stephen Wilde says:
December 27, 2012 at 2:51 pm
“On the basis of Parrncuttlogic/ Greenspeak anyone could justify killing anyone for anything.”
The Rule Of Law has been coming apart for quite a while now (arbitrary killings by drone strike; and OTOH no prosecution for Obama cronies (Corzine)).
The Parncutts will come out of the woodworks.
johnb says:
December 27, 2012 at 12:50 pm
As I said, things are much the same for farmers everywhere. Here are income farm-income figures compiled by Statistics Canada for Canada: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/agri119a-eng.htm
Uphold Free Speech against Totalitarianism
Contrast:
With David M. Hoffer’s request:
How is imposing university speech codes any different from totalitarianism or imposing the death penalty on over impious speech?
The right of free speech, religious belief and exercise were preserved through costly excesses.
America’s Founders refused to ratify the Constitution until it included a Bill of Rights including:
It took the Trial of the Seven Bishops (1688) to restore the right to petition and preserve it in the (English) Bill of Rights (1689) and thence into the US Bill of Rights.
Today’s rapidly growing intolerance on both sides is seriously degrading our speech rights.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall, (1868 – after 1939) under the pseudonym S.G. Tallentyre, paraphrasing Voltaire’s sentiments. Columbia Book of Quotes
Beware the new “politically correct” Inquisition. It would have been better for the University to post a strong opposing statement alongside the objected text rather than force it to be recanted.
Uphold both the right to free speech and the right to publicly counter it – without destroying the careers of either persons or of those being spoken against.