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.
Mr Parncutt is very worried about ‘future generations’ as this goes with his avid supporter of the World Future Council.
links
http://www.thegef.org/gef/whatisgef
and some funding –
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:22578540~pagePK:64257043~piPK:437376~theSitePK:4607,00.html
And with help from the UN they help unify action of NGOs across the world. (just google NGO and GEF)
“federico says:
December 27, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Parncutt has some tradition in asking for executions. Look in Wikipedia and here:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/professor-says-execute-pope-benedict/ ”
I’m wondering if the fellow might be suffering from an undiagnosed brain tumor or something. The University should be trying to get him some medical help.
In his original article that odious creature Parncutt wrote, “…..according to the principle I have proposed, the Pope and perhaps some of his closest advisers should be sentenced to death. I am talking about the current Pope…..”
That is more than a threat, it’s incitement to kill. It is the true face of Liberal Fascism. It is also a crime in Austria:
“…..many modern liberals and leftists act as if they know exactly what fascism is. What’s more they see it everywhere – except when they look in the mirror.”
Jonah Goldberg
Maybe its not so surprising that Parncutt is a member of Amnesty. So is Bono.
The World Future Council (along with UK Climate Change minister John Gummer) is discussed at length at –
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/john-gummer-and-the-world-future-council/
Along with Mr Parncutt being exposed as a member of this organization by by Paul Homewood and tallbloke.
wonderer says: December 27, 2012 at 2:44 pm
I wonder how much of Parncutt’s apology was dictated to him by his university?
============================
This is the crucial point. Would Parncutt have retracted that statement and issued an apology on his own? I doubt it. His apology seems pro forma and unconvincing. It seems obvious to me that he did so because he was required to by the university administration.
This was not a simple breach of good manners. Parncutt advocates mass violence against skeptics because of their beliefs. Does the term “death penalty” fool anyone? Hitler’s extermination of the Jews of Europe was a legal act, according to the laws in force at that time.
Even a sincere apology would not suffice, in my view, and only a weak fool would be willing to pass over this incident. This should not be dropped. Nutticelli’s refusal to disavow Parncutt shows that these sentiments pervade the camp of the global warmers. There is a lot more to be done in regard to this, which is not, repeat not, a sentiment limited to one whacko.
Other things that need to be done: John Sloboda needs to be contacted and his role in this business brought into the light. The role of the World Future Council must investigated. Remember, this is the organization that spawned Crimes Against the Future project which led to Parncutt’s “death penalty”, and fingered by Parncutt himself. Much more to do.
I’m not sure whether I should give the guy the benefit of the doubt or no not. We all say or type things that we don’t actually, literally, mean “in the heat of the moment”. Then again, sometimes we meant it but under pressure we try modify it to keep out of trouble.
I suspect he meant the original but maybe he had one to many beers when he was at the keyboard. I don’t know. His employer should keep an eye on him and the the parents of his students should keep an eye on their kids teachers.
This man comes from my home city Melbourne Australia. In Australia we seem to have per head of population the greatest number of educated idiots anywhere in the world.
I shall be applying to the Guiness book of records such that this accomplishment shall be recorded, proving we have the largest collection of idiots and champions of the world in that catagory.
Why do I get the feeling that this music man belongs to every politically correct left-wing nut group out there?
To all saying thank you to me, your welcome, but there were many more involved. In particular, commenter “Sean” who posted the rektor’s email address. Also, the response to me was sent to a list of 30+other people whom I assume also complained. I snipped that out as I didn’t want to compromise the privacy of those individuals, but we owe all who spoke up our appreciation.
As for those hollering about freedom of speech, this is hardly a freedom of speech issue. The university’s web site speaks for the university. It is a forum for researchers at that university to discuss their research, not for the espousing of political views about someone else’s research or opinions about that research. He violated the university’s policies in that regard. There is absolutely nothing stopping Parncutt from getting his own personal web site, nothing preventing him from writing letters to newspapers or administration, nothing stopping him from raising his voice at meetings. He is free to speak his views, odious though they might be, but he is not free to use the resources of his employer and associate them with his views by doing so.
It is Parncutt who violates freedom of speech by advocating for violent intimidation of those who would speak their mind freely. Attempting to turn it around the other way is as odious as the remarks that he made.
Taken from Wikipedia –
“In crime and law, hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group. Examples of such groups include but are not limited to: racial group, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or gender identity.
A hate crime is a category used to describe bias-motivated violence: “assault, injury, and murder on the basis of certain personal characteristics: different appearance, different color, different nationality, different language, different religion.”
“Hate crime” generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).
A hate crime law is a law intended to prevent bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech in that hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech.”
And also
“Hate crime laws
Hate crime laws generally fall into one of several categories:
laws defining specific bias-motivated acts as distinct crimes;
criminal penalty-enhancement laws;
laws creating a distinct civil cause of action for hate crimes; and
laws requiring administrative agencies to collect hate crime statistics. Sometimes (as in Bosnia and Herzegovina), the laws focus on war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity with the prohibition against discriminatory action limited to public officials.
Eurasia
European Union
Since 2002, with an amendment to the Convention on Cybercrime, the European Union mandates individual states to punish as a crime hate speech done through the internet.”
I see this as more than just a University issue, apology notwithstanding.
Jim Cripwell says:
December 27, 2012 at 1:12 pm
….In any event, to me the proper source of ethanol is not food, but waste agricultural products….. All this waste product is not required for agriculture, and could be a substantial source of a renewable fuel which can be stored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually the ‘waste agricultural products’ should be returned to the land as organic matter that increase water retention, nutrients…. Not returning the organic matter to the soil eventually means the soil becomes less and less productive. My farm was sold cheap because it was 98-99% pure clay per soil analysis and would no longer produce a crop. It used to have close to a meter of the best top soil in the area. Unfortunately as leased land nothing was done to protect the farmland. I am slowly rebuilding the topsoil by using it as pasture.
Corn the most common crop for biofuel and is very hard on the soil.
Professor Parncutt has found himself accepted by a bad influence, who have groomed him, now the poor fellow has got all worked up and looks a right fool. live and learn!
Monckton of Brenchley says: December 27, 2012 at 3:19 pm
“we should regard the matter as closed.”
================================
I could not disagree with you more. Parncutt’s offense was not a simple breach of good manners, to be mended by an apology, but something far more serious. His comments comtemplate genocide, and I myself was to be one of the proscribed, according to my science convictions. It is my opinion that Parncutt’s “death penalty” is silently approved by many radical Greens who themselves hold neo-facists views and who would mimic Hitler’s acts of extermination, if they were given the opportunity. Parncutts would-be prosciption touches on the shadowy workings of such organizations as the World Future Council, which see. The refusal of certain prominent members of the other camp to put distance between themselves and the pronouncements of Parncutt confirm me in this, I feel. This matter should not be left as it is now. It is far from closed.
Bloke down the pub says: “Only time will tell how it affects his promotion prospects.”
Not good once he watered down his statements. However, it was his apology that axed any chance of him being considered as a replacement for Lisa Jackson. Although if he would agree to water-boarding of pulp-ring data, he might have a chance at one mann’s position.
/sarc off
Stark Dickflüssig says: December 27, 2012 at 1:43 pm
the absurd waste of burning food in your car’s engine.
===============================
This thanks to the agricultural lobby. The use of grains to manufacture ethanol pushed the price of food through the roof. In effect, ethanol constitutes a price subsidy and was meant as such. It succeeded fabulously and you now susidize agriculture at the gas pump. The alternative to ethanol is methanol, which can be produced very cheaply, compared to ethanol. All this talk about poor farmers belongs to another era. I know farmers who are quite wealthy.
Arthur Dent says:
December 27, 2012 at 12:16 pm
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I second that.
It is not as if he has influenced goverrnment policy on any climate related issue. He is in no way responsible for governmental responses to the perceived threat of global warming and quite frankly his views on global warming and CAGW are of no importance whatsoever.
His views did not make sweet music, but he is as entitled to his opinion (however odious) as is the next man.
On behalf of all Melbournians (of which I am one), I wish to unconditionally apologise to all of you for the academics that seem to originate from this once great city. It was not that long ago that Melbourne was regarded as one of the great scientific cities of the world, now it seems to be known for insane academics.
I agree with David Hagen. University-imposed speech codes represent privatized totalitarianism. They train people to believe that censorship is good when it enforces their sincerely held beliefs.
The University of Graz would have served its mission of education far better by inviting Richard Parncutt to debate his position publicly. That might have involved his entry here on WUWT and/or hosting comments on his own page. The contest of ideas is, after all, the heart of any honest university.
What better way to deflate Richard Parncutt’s violent rhetoric than to employ rational criticism to shoot it down in flames? After reading his argument, there’s no doubt that it would not survive scrutiny. The intellectual fatuity of SkS and DeSmogBlog would become implicit in Mr. Parncutt’s ethical illegitimacy.
As it is, the University has forced Mr. Parncutt to remove his essay; a disappearance that would not have happened otherwise. Mr. Parncutt himself has offered his regrets, also consequent to University pressure. He would not have done that otherwise, either.
After all, his essay represents his fully considered view. It is suffused with righteous anger. Why would he voluntarily have removed it, or regretted it?
So, Mr. Parncutt’s regrets are very likely insincere. He almost certainly hasn’t changed his mind. He probably continues to believe his conclusions because they have not been subjected to public critical scrutiny. He’s only been forced into silence. His ideas will go underground. His fellow-travelers will resent the censorship, and justifiably so.
I don’t see any good coming from a censorious conclusion of the Parncutt affair.
wayne Job says: “I shall be applying to the Guiness book of records such that this accomplishment shall be recorded, proving we have the largest collection of idiots and champions of the world in that catagory.”
I am truly sorry to say this, but we got you beat hands down, mate.
We have Washington D.C., the breeding ground of the elite of the Elitist educated idiots. We can actually send intelligent people to Washington D.C., and with in a few months, they can’t even do basic math, i.e. balancing a checkbook.
David, you wrote, “As for those hollering about freedom of speech, this is hardly a freedom of speech issue. The university’s web site speaks for the university.”
The university should speak for freedom of speech.
I don’t blame you for notifying the University about Mr. Parncutt’s essay. I just think the university’s response violated their own mission. It would have been far better to have required Mr. Parncutt to expose his ideas to free debate, as an alternative to taking down his essay. Honestly, I don’t think you are at all justified in characterizing as “odious” support for free speech and against censorship by a university.
“It is not understandable why such a person can be on the payroll of an university and is not in jail”
Now lets see – If I was to write similar words about climate alarmists (or in fact refer to anyone in this way) I would certainly be dismissed from my employ, possibly without my feet touching the ground – but then I’m not a muso and not employed by the Uni of Graz.
However, he should not fear … there is a well paid job and pension for life waiting for him in radio and/or television at Australia’s ABC, or even a seat in Australia’s current carbon dioxide taxing government.
If he was to return to Ossie he would likely enter parliament as a Labour party ‘star’. Parncutt’s plan would surely reduce un-employment levels, lower numbers of elderly Australians (reducing the ‘economic burden’ they have on the economy) and create employment (in the funeral industry)…. All top near the top of the list of Gillard’s Government policy.
My question is this… Would his plan involve incineration of the dead skeptics or burial of the decaying bodies? Both will produce greenhouse gases and clearly add to his ‘climate problem’.
“Quinn says:
December 27, 2012 at 3:28 pm
federico says:
December 27, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Parncutt has some tradition in asking for executions. Look in Wikipedia and here:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/professor-says-execute-pope-benedict/ ”
I’m wondering if the fellow might be suffering from an undiagnosed brain tumor or something. The University should be trying to get him some medical help.”
I know it’s easy to throw around the label ‘ill’ (in some fashion or other) but I think you might have a point here.
This man may well be deserving of nothing more than sympathy.
Once again I propose a WUWT “Hall of Shame”. These extremists deserve proper recognition for the disservice they have done to their cause. Ultimately they ought not to be shut up but exposed. Properly executed such a concept could provide an invaluable resource for revealing the “mind” of the eco-machine. Healthy, human oriented viewers would be properly appalled and thus inoculated against their madness. These nutbars are our best weapon, lets use it!
It appears to me that fear of criminal prosecution by current Austrian law brought about the retraction. Call it censorship if you want, but it appears from Monckton’s posting that there was an issue of enforcing existing laws and what the outcome would be for Parncutt et al. Methinks that legal counsel strongly recommended the course of action taken by Parncutt & U of Graz.