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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pat Frank says: December 27, 2012 at 4:47 pm
========================================
Freedom of speech is not an absolute and utterly unfettered freedom. Any professor has responsibilities and these include deportment and teaching. Any person on a public payroll is subject to public indignity if he merits it. These are the facts of life. You uphold ideals, and that’s fine, but hard realities impose themselves and if someone says “I will kill you for that” he has broken the law in some countries and could go to jail. Parncutt has advocated genocide as a solution to the debate on an issue of science. He deserves censure. Please do not pretend that it is merely a matter of exercising one’s freedom of speech. As one on his list of proscribed, I reject this notion.
tckev says: December 27, 2012 at 3:26 pm
I’d suggest that the record shows that the UN has been largely responsible for the ever-increasing proliferation of NGOs who’ve gotten far to big for their britches. As I have noted elsewhere, the UN actually fosters the “thinking” of the likes of Parncutt.
A “mandated priority area” of the UN’s “Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (hands up all who even knew that such a Commission even exists!) is:
Parncutt’s performances and “aplologies” in the light of criticism are reminiscent of Franny Armstrong’s antics in lieu of apology on the heels of her 10:10 No Pressure disaster.
Bu,t I suppose, to his credit – unlike Armstrong – Parncutt has not tried to claim that his words of incitement against those who do not share his ill-informed views constituted an attempt at “humour”.
Regarding the University’s rights to have Parncutt remove those comments:
He is/was their employee, using the University’s resources. They have every right (and indeed legal obligation) to control what appears on their web site; including what is with the “personal” pages of staff and students.
Parncutt can get web space outside of the University to extol the virtues of His Struggle. The fact that he didn’t publish his personal ideology by such means already says a great deal about the man’s outlook.
Lord Monckton is IMHO incorrect in stating that the matter is closed. If a crime has occurred, then an apology is not a replacement for due process.
mpainter, I’m proposing the standard “hard reality” of exposing lurid and violently stupid opinions to public criticism. Oxygen is the best disinfectant in these cases. Suppression leads to suppuration and festering resentment, outcomes to be actively avoided.
Mr. Parncutt hasn’t advocated “genocide,” the race-prejudiced elimination of a people. He has defined a thought crime and advocated mass murder as a solution; standard ideological intolerance carried to its logical conclusion. The latter is actually the more dangerous because it transcends race politics, which is always provincial, and achieves a call to murderous action that is unlimited and global and never reaches a finale. Witness the 20th century or religious history.
The really curious aspect of Mr. Parncutt’s position is that, like all AGW believers, he has swallowed the polemical demonology and credits the testimony only of those who share his politics. I.e., Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann over John Christy and Richard Lindzen. All four are equally qualified in a formal sense. And yet Mr. Parncutt, consciously ignorant of the science, nevertheless chooses to believe the former two over the latter. The existence of a debate neither fazes him nor makes him circumspect. This is very peculiar, and Mr. Parncutt, if he is reading this, ought to pay strict attention to this mental lacuna. Though typically human, it’s a real failing. Awhile back, I had an email conversation about AGW with Anna Eschoo, my local Representative to Congress. She has done the same thing — made a partisan choice about which experts to believe — and when I pointed that out to her our conversation ceased.
I’m a little confused by some of the free-speech defenders who have commented above. They seem to be saying that Parncutt has every right to use his employer’s website to call for my execution, but I do not have the right to express an opinion that he should be fired. Which opinion is more extreme? Which one calls for violence? If you think it is valid free speech for him to call for the execution of those who disagree with him, would you feel the same way if he said he was going to blowup your child’s school because scientific consensus says the world is overpopulated?
I don’t have the ability to fire Mr. Parncutt. I can only express an opinion about it. So why should his opinion receive more protection than mine? Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in calling for the censorship of one opinion in order to preserve the free-speech rights of another?
I tend to agree with Bernd Felsche. Parncutt really crossed the line.
Comments like Parncrutt’s are very insidious. They pave the way and excuse ever more egregious comments — until the innocent target is so completely demonized that society turns a blind eye to the true victims, in this case those whose only ‘crimes’ are having a different scientific point of view. It happened in the 1930’s, and make no mistake: it is happening again. Parncrutt is clearly suggesting fatal violence against those he disagrees with.
We can see how similar demonization of law abiding citizens works here. Demonizing those Parncrutt disagrees with is a vicious Saul Alinsky tactic widely used by the totalitarian Left, which even includes the current U.S. president.
An apology is not sufficient. Parncrutt’s apology is insincere; written with a wink and a nod to his friends and co-workers. Parncrutt is just playing the game. Only his prompt termination would have been sufficient to derail the escalation of these threats. But that is unlikely to happen, and so the demonization of scientific skeptics will continue.
Someone near the beginning of this thread was unfamiliar with the discipline of musicology. As a retired musicologist, let me state briefly that musicology is the study of the literature (i.e., the music itself) and the history of music, including such related matters as aesthetics, theory (including as a historical discipline), instrument families and construction, and–in short–anything to do with music and its history. Unfortunately, in recent decades historical musicology (as well as ethnomusicology) has been tainted with the ugly stain of Political Correctness in all its forms and ramifications, of which Prof. Parncutt seems to be a prime exemplar. As a musicologist, he has no expertise or authority concerning climate science; you may note that my own comments on this excellent site are often commendatory but never deal directly with science, since I am a musicologist, not a climate scientist. Now, if you wish to know about dissonance treatment in many-voiced polyphony in the early Renaissance, or yet keyboard performance practice in the late 18th century, then I’m your man . . .
Bernd Felsche
What are you are you? the thought police?
Case closed!
Dr. John M. Ware says:
December 27, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Well then, let me be the first to ask such a question. 8<)
Have you read the instruments, music (and ballet) themed short stories in the 1632 alternative universe of the Granville Gazettes and their formative 1632-1633-1634-1635 science fiction novels?
Beautiful written stories about 1630-era German Italians and Dutch composers, musicians and dancers (and their church and secular sponsors) trying to come to terms with 20th century music and instruments being introduced into their world ….
People like Richard Parncutt actually need our help to protect them from the lies and deceit propagated by the media. It is those disreputable con artists at the IPCC and UEA and other research grant seeking scientific “alarmists” who actually do know better that really deserve our scorn. A musicologist is as much a victim as most others of one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on the human race.
Parncrutt’s apology is thoroughly insincere. He has called for the execution of others in the past [and for completely bogus ‘reasons’], and he continues to do so, as we see here.
Only the termination of his employment would begin to put a damper on comments like Parncrutt’s. His insincere apology is not a sufficient remedy. He needs to go.
Thanks to those who made the effort to write to the University of Graz and deal with this issue, especially to David M Hoffer for his well worded letters, and to Monckton of Brenchly for his equally well worded and brutally effective ones.
However we should not imagine Parcutt is sitting there feeling contrite. He is undoubtedly seething with rage and humiliation that his “righteous” clarion call has been so “unreasonably” silenced.
“A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion, still.”
Apology? Where’s the announcement of his outright dismissal?
Another example of this ‘professor’s’ online postings:
https://www.change.org/petitions/demand-that-rush-limbaugh-sarah-palin-stop-denying-global-warming-stop-telling-lies
Richard Parncutt GRAZ, AUSTRIA 3 months ago Liked 0
I have always been opposed to the death penalty. But influential climate change deniers can indirectly cause millions of deaths in the future. These are genocidal dimensions and the culprits should be tried accordingly.
Anyway, on reading of Parncutt’s views, I formed the hypothesis that Lewsandowsky and Parncutt were known to one another. Google immediately emitted this: http://leadserv.u-bourgogne.fr/files/publications/000005-repetition-priming-is-music-special.pdf (psychobabble) which refers to both Parncutt and Lewandowsky. So the hypothesis has yet to be falsified…!
It appears that Lord Monckton’s actual threat of legal action was what got the fellow to immediately apologize and withdraw. I think this is what should be done to Mann etc. Surely University laws etc expressly forbid Fraud?
Pat Frank says: December 27, 2012 at 4:47 pm “Honestly, I don’t think you are at all justified in characterizing as “odious” support for free speech and against censorship by a university.”
Pat, In the first WUWT blog I argued several times that a call to arms and rapid execution might not be the best course. It closes off exploration of what made the man speak this way.
I was moderately criticised for being soft. I’m not soft, but there are more subtle ways to get inside the mind of the person and having done so, to learn to your advantage.
I would be fascinated to know which concepts formed his “tipping point”. But others now seem to have closed off that avenue, not the least his present University.
To conclude my earlier analogy, perhaps the nurse had dislexia when she repeated that “He will feel better after we prick his boil.” Surgical procedures typically take planning, time and skill, not hand grenades.
Richard Parncutt – “Lawyers will see this situation differently, of course. According to current law you cannot exact a criminal sentence of murder on someone for deaths that have not yet happened, and might not happen if -”
Clearly Parncutt knows what he is advocating is Legally wrong. Thus, Richard also knows it is Morally wrong, otherwise we would not have such a Legal requirement. Yet, Parncutt persists…
***************************************************
Richard Parncutt – “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.”
Guilty, not by a jury of peers; but by a stacked group with bias against the accused
Guilty, not by facts; but by estimations or assumptions
Guilty, not by evidence; but by possibilities or speculations
***************************************************
Richard Parncutt – “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)”
Not much different than say, Spanish Inquisition or Salem Witch Trials.
Absolute and undeniable intimidation.
***************************************************
Richard Parncutt – “And like them I have freedom of speech, which is a very valuable thing.”
Freedom of speech is a very valuable thing, so long as you agree with Parncutt.
***************************************************
Richard Parncutt – “I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, …”
Speak with forked tongue much, Richard? (Also see previous)
***************************************************
Richard Parncutt – “…how the Pope and his closest advisers should be punished for their consistent stand against contraception in the form of condoms.”
New Legal Precedent according to Parncutt: A person can be held accountable for the bad judgement or irresponsible actions of others. Expanded: A person can be held accountable not for forcing someone to do something, but for merely making a suggestion that might not be in their best interest.
***************************************************
Richard Parncutt – “An objective argument…a conservative conclusion”
Two Lies in a one liner.
markx;
However we should not imagine Parcutt is sitting there feeling contrite. He is undoubtedly seething with rage and humiliation that his “righteous” clarion call has been so “unreasonably” silenced.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Agreed, that is probably exactly what he is doing. Nothing prevents him from using private resources to advocate for his private opinion however. He’s only been prevented from using his employer’s resources to advocate for his private opinion.
For me however, this was never about changing his mind. This was about the university. Their choices were to endorse, ignore, or condemn his comments. They chose to condemn them, and that is of vital importance in a civil society. When hate speech is ignored, it becomes bolder. When condemned, it retreats. When endorsed… it is time to change your name and flee to a country where they don’t care about that particular topic.
I’m pleased (and relieved) to see that the the U of Graz has done the right thing by condemning what was said.
Dr. John M. Ware
December 27, 2012 at 6:15 pm
###
You probably know already, that the readers of this blog have a wide range of interests other then climate. Don’t be surprised if you get some questions. Actually you happen to have touched on something that I have been wanting to learn about, and that is the transition from the formalisms of late Baroque to the more harmonically complicated early Renaissance. I have been meaning to ask my roommate about this for some time, but we usually talk about the physical sciences, computer programming, and politics.
His degree is in piano performance. He tells me that even though Musicology is dominated by Marxist thought, it is not by nature a Marxist discipline. I have my doubts. He once played a piece by Rakhmaninov. It was gorgeous. When I proclaimed that I had never heard it before, he said, “I know. This is one of the pieces that academia has tried to disappear. No one plays it.”
Pat Frank says: December 27, 2012 at 5:56 pm
“Mr. Parncutt hasn’t advocated “genocide,” the race-prejudiced elimination of a people.”
“Suppression leads to suppuration and festering resentment”
==========================
My dictionary does not limit genocide to extermination based on race, ethnic, political and religious grounds. I say genocide, and the word fits.
Do you really wish to see debated at places like the University of Graz (or Penn State or UCAL Berkeley, or UColorado, etc.,) the proposition that you should be proscribed and executed? In places like that, skeptics are seen as criminals. Do not be foolish, you could lose the debate at such places.
“Suppuration and festering resentment” because they cannot advocate liquidation of the skeptics? May they fester their britches into knots.
I disagree that having this article removed and requiring an apology abridge free speech.
As has been pointed out many times before in other discussions, the right to free speech is not untrammelled anywhere, and there are good reasons for this.
In the case under review, I have no objection to Parncutt expressing his views – indeed, as others have said, it is revelatory and does his cause more harm than good.
The issue is that he used his employer’s website to do so, and further that his employer is a university.
In general, an employer has every right to control what is issued publicly under their name – whether it be in print, on television or on their website. This is because it affects their reputation and also potentially their commercial interests, where that applies.
It has been suggested that because Parncutt’s employer is a university, he (or presumably any other employee) should be allowed to do whatever they want on the University’s website. Apart from being irresponsible in legal terms (the university could be sued or prosecuted), it is also absurd as an argument for intellectual freedom. If Parncutt had posted a controversial piece about his views on musicology, few would argue that he should not be able to do so, provided he didn’t break any laws or otherwise expose the university to harm.
But he didn’t post on his area of academic expertise – it was just a ‘think-piece’ on a topic quite unrelated to his professional role and qualifications. Further (apart from being barking mad) it exposed the university to harm and possibly to litigation and prosecution.
There are many places Parncutt can express himself, but just as Anthony is the arbiter of this blog – because he carries the can if something goes wrong – the university, or any other employer, is not a vehicle for whatever thought-bubble or sick fantasy an employee happens to have. That has absolutely nothing to do with the right to free speech or the quality of intellectual cut and thrust in academia.
Geoff Sherrington says: “It closes off exploration of what made the man speak this way.” “I would be fascinated to know which concepts formed his ‘tipping point’.”
Point noted. But I am far less concerned about what Richard’s “tipping point” was.
I am more concerned that Richard Parncutt, as University Instructor, might have planted his radical views in some impressionable young minds. With one of those minds now formulating a method of implementing Parncutt’s AGW denier justice system – as in Going Postal.
Hopefully, U of Graz is taking appropriate steps (discussions of ethics and morals, denouncement of Richard’s views, counseling) with all of Parncutt’s students. If I were a parent of a student at U of Graz, the Dean and I would be having a serious face-to-face.
Here is something to ponder: Would you hire a student of Richard Parncutt? Would you hire a student who graduated from U of Graz; knowing the University had allowed Richard Parncutt to instruct there, despite his radical, unjust (against Legal standards), and unmoral views?
Richard Parncutt seems to be suffering from neurosis by any measure. That he should be excused for his outbursts based on being neurotic holds little comfort with me. The free speech bit is a little over the top. The fact that he is employed as a university professor should imply some sense of responsibility. We need more reasonable and stable academics influencing future generations, not nut cases with neurotic personality disorders.
But I agree that it would be worthwhile to know just what pushed him over the edge.
The guy needs professional help.
As far as I know, freedom of speech does not include the uttering of threats or advocating killing or murder of individuals or groups.
Does being a member of Amnesty Intl. provide licence to advocate executions? Is Parncutt saying that Amenesty is party to his murder advocacy?
Let me get this straight. You’re upset one guy posted an essay calling for the death penalty for “deniers” but then you post a piece saying the scientists should burn in hell. Sounds like there is a shortage of grownups all around.