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.
Congratulations David on an excellent result. As a fellow Australian I am dismayed at Parncutt and his attitude but having been stalked by another of his ilk I know he is not alone in the world.
i suppose it shouldn’t be a surprised as my country also produced the frightening spectre of ultra-Humanist Peter Singer whose ideas include “Ape rights”, infanticide, “limited” bestiality (whatever that is) and the euthanasing of disabled people. He is also from Melbourne and ironically the son of Austrian Jews who fled to Australia to escape the Nazi Holocaust. Rather than Singer being vilified and scorned though, he has been employed in a place of major influence as Professor of Bioethics at Princeton! I have no doubt that Parncutt has been highly influenced by Singer and wouldn’t be surprised if he is a former student. It is a mystery to me that a nation built on the concept of helping the underdog and justice for all could produce such views. Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but by accepting that principal we can’t then be surprised when the lunatics talk their way into asylum management.
Dante’s hell is a literary device from the Middle Ages discussing the assumed (postulated) destination for various individuals who have finished their natural lives here on earth, then get “assigned” various levels of “storage” based that individual’s actions and decisions in his or her life.
A parody of a classic literary device is NOT a mandate nor political action. (Dante actually has no “burning” regions, by the way. )
Is that not different than a supposed university professor calling for officially sanctioned societal murder of an entire class of people with whom he disagrees?
johanna says: “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,”
Agreed. To understand this, it is important to remember the context from which Freedom of Speech originated. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech”.
Removing side topics: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Thus the Government is prevented, but not private entities.
However, more to the point and matter at hand…
From FindLaw AU: “Australia does not have an explicit First Amendment equivalent enshrining the protection of freedom of speech in our Constitution.”
From Wiki: “Australia does not have explicit freedom of speech in any constitutional or statutory declaration of rights, with the exception of political speech which is protected from criminal prosecution”
Reads like, U of Graz can axe any speech it wants.
After posting my last one I thought I might google “Parncutt Peter Singer” and wasn’t surprised to see others have made the same connection: http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/musicologist_of_death/
mbw says:
December 27, 2012 at 9:33 pm
You should spend a moment and Google Dante’s hell.
Billy says:
December 27, 2012 at 9:31 pm
Well, according to FOIA acquired documents published by the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) killed a staggering 95.9 percent of the adoptable pets in its care during 2011.
So… it’s entirely conceivable that that Amnesty Intl. may advocate executions. It wouldn’t be the first time that an organization partakes in the behavior that it condemns.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
walterschneider says:
December 27, 2012 at 3:01 pm
johnb says:
December 27, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Re: AllanJ –Where exactly in the US are farmers having a hard time “surviving?” They have had record income the last few years;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Another wonderful example of how to lie with statistics:
Now that is an interesting piece of fiction. The last time I dug into US farm household income, the average farm income was a net loss of $14,000 and over 90% of US farmers had jobs outside farming.
AHHHhhh, I found out how the USDA has managed to turn the net loss into a net gain!
In the USDA spread sheet it says: “The difference between returns-to-operators and net farm income is equivalent to the net rental value of farm operator dwellings” So “farm Income” includes the “the net rental value of farm operator dwellings”
I can not find my reference for that net loss of $14,000 number but here are the actual numbers for farm income: These are GROSS sales ( GROSS is not net income like salary, you have to deduct the running expenses first)
Ag Census 2002 (2.2 million farms)
Farms by value of sales…….Number of Farms
Less than $2,500…………………….826,558
$2,500 to $4,999……………………..213,326
$5,000 to $9,999……………………..223,168
$10,000 to $24,999………………….256,157
$25,000 to $49,999………………….157,906
$50,000 to $99,99…………………….140,479
$100,000 to $499,99…………………240,746
$500,000 or more……………………..70,642
How in the world do you get “average farm household had an annual net income of $81,480” when over 1.8 million farms are grossing UNDER $100,000 and 300,000 are grossing over $100,000. Must be all that farmland Soros and Rothschild are buying up that have skewed the curve.
My home state, North Carolina, according to the 2002 Ag Census, had 53930 farms. 5,978 gross over $250,000 and 47,480 farms grossed under $50,000. Only 171 Farms are not Family held. The total NET income for the state was $1,915,259,000 or $35,514 per farm.
Remember this includes the rental value of the house on the farm. I wonder how much the met farm income is due to the increased valuation of the rental value…..
May 12 ~ “Farmers admit they are getting great prices for wheat, but that’s being offset by record fertiliser and fuel prices.”
This was the actual state of affairs in 2000
Darren Potter says:
December 27, 2012 at 9:49 pm
From Wiki: “Australia does not have explicit freedom of speech in any constitutional or statutory declaration of rights, with the exception of political speech which is protected from criminal prosecution”
—————————————————————————————————–
Not only the above, but there is Federal Law prohibiting what they term “Hate Crimes” which includes any speech that incites violence and/or hate against any group. Thus as an Aussie, the Professor may in fact have contravened Australian Federal Law and be liable for criminal charges.
I urge any Aussies here to do as I did and lodge an Australian Human Rights Complaint (the group who deal with these hate crimes). This attitude must be stopped now, not allowed to continue, or over time it WILL be socially acceptable to exterminate sceptics.
They must really want us to drop the “k” from the “SkS” shorthand, eh?
Geoff, agreed, I think. 🙂 Exposing Mr. Parncutt’s shallow thinking to full critical examination should lead all but the hopelessly extreme to reject his analysis and conclusions. For that reason, the better course would have been the university requiring him to engage an active debate. As for the patient, I hope the nurse was able to overcome the dislexia before it was too late.
mpainter, you need a better dictionary. Parncutt’s proposition is fatuous. We wouldn’t lose the debate you fear, anywhere. I agree that for ideological reasons some audiences might reject their defeat. But that’s not a loss. That’s prejudice. Better we should expose that early.
I guess the key question here is whether these are the calm, cold and dispassionate opinions of the author or whether he is a bit of a hothead who gets very het up about such things and wrote this in response to some frustration, whatever that might have been.
After all, the majority of us in the world are brought up/taught to ‘respect seniority’ and, since ‘seniority’ was broadly saying the science ‘has been settled’ for a decade or so, it must be rather frustrating and galling for ‘true believers’, ‘good little green citizens’ or the like to face the prospect of seeing the high priests of their religion being defrocked. Heretics were burnt at the stake for such challenges to the status quo in centuries gone by. Quakers who thought the Established churches were dilly dallying about faith didn’t do too much better to be honest.
If you worked in cancer research for a decade as I did, it’s pretty galling to hear people trying to disavow the link between smoking and cancer. Outliers exist of course, both the semi-alcoholic chain-smokers who die at 95 of old age, as well as the non-smokers who are struck down by malignant disease in their 40s. I had fairly strong views about local store owners who were selling the U12s single cigarettes, getting them hooked as children, but I never advocated killing them! I have equally strong views about supermarkets flooding the UK market with cheap alcohol, creating a generation of binge drinkers (who may well bankrupt the health service assuming it’s not privatised by the time they need it). Lord Sainsbury, Sir Terry Leahy and the Walton family are unlikely to be assassinated on my orders however.
What’s truly scary right now is how the weather extremes which occur every year somewhere on earth are being touted as ‘signs of climate change’. The fact that 2012 was the wettest in the UK for 100 years, tells you that 100 years ago, namely 1912, we had just as much rain, with the proviso that carbon dioxide levels were much lower and temperature was significantly lower too, apparently.
All this does suggest the question which should be asked is not ‘why is there extreme weather today?’ but rather, ‘given that carbon dioxide and temperature were both lower than now by significant amounts, how the heck did extremes occur in the early 20th century and late 19th century, seeing as how it’s all this ‘global warming’ that is the reason for the extremes in the first place?’
Is it too much to ask for????
Unfortunatley he also deleted the links to the leftist petitions and proposals (global wealth tax….), which could be blurred when MSM starts reporting about his case.
I would also like to thank all those who took the time and trouble to share their thoughts in emails.
What about a FOIA request for the emails?
DesertYote says:
December 27, 2012 at 8:38 pm
Dr. John M. Ware
December 27, 2012 at 6:15 pm
###
YIKES!
The sentence:
“the transition from the formalisms of late Baroque to the more harmonically complicated early Renaissance”
was supposed to be:
“the transition from the formalisms of late Renaissance to the more harmonically complicated early Baroque”
Dana Nuccitelli shows his true colours at last. SkS finally shows that perhaps the SS tag for them is justified.
Math Genius says:
December 28, 2012 at 12:24 am
“Unfortunatley he also deleted the links to the leftist petitions and proposals (global wealth tax….), which could be blurred when MSM starts reporting about his case.”
In the past, the only times the MSM reported about crazy crackpot warmist ethicists was espousal of their ideas. (BBC, Liao, Radio interview e.g.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00q88qq/One_Planet_Aid_Happiness_and_Tiny_Vegetarians/
Q: “And what if you had 10 children” A: “well, maybe we should set a limit, so if you’re very large, maybe we should count that as a disability”.
Chris Tangey says:
December 27, 2012 at 10:02 pm
“After posting my last one I thought I might google “Parncutt Peter Singer” and wasn’t surprised to see others have made the same connection: http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/musicologist_of_death/ ”
From the article:
” (Incidentally, if killing “future people” is a capital crime, it would be interesting to hear Parncutt’s views on abortion.)”
Indeed.
Wow–two messages to reply to! First, to the person who asked about the instrument stories from or about the 1630s–no, I had never heard of them, but they sound fascinating! Please, if you have more information, post it!
Second, to DesertYote: Great question, which would take (has already taken) large books to answer in detail. The short answer is that the modal system that had imperfectly but largely dominated polyphonic music since its inception was breaking down, and “modern” tonality had not yet been formulated or theoretically justified, so that harmony (especially the new continuo-generated chords) in the early Baroque was often very exploratory. The transition is especially poignant and aurally astonishing in many works of the Italian master Monteverdi (1567-1642), as well as his German pupil Heinrich Schutz (1585-1672), who in some of his choral works in the 1620s simply left the moorings of tonality altogether while writing some of the strangest and most beautiful music in existence. The battle between the modes and tonality lasts until some of the works of Purcell (1656-95), though tonality has fully taken over by the works of Corelli (1560-1613), who wrote no vocal music at all and whose sonatas and concertos give some of the purest examples of tonal writing in existence; by then, of course, the Baroque, like the Renaissance before it, had settled into a strongly codified set of systems of thought and composition.
I hope my answer gives a little insight!
Oh, no! I put Corelli a century too early! 1650-1713! Sorry!
On reading the original, I thought it was quite logical, in a sort of sophomoric symposion way. What was glaringly obvious was the number of logical falacies he displays. I’m not sure what he is professor of (and can’t be bothered to find out), but it’s obviously not a discipline which clls for rigorous analytical skills. In sum, a not-very-bright lightweight.
Further to above, I looked at DirkH’s link, and was I glad I did. Absolutely priceless!
What a prat!
I would like to see some statement from Amnesty International about this.
It is found that engineers don’t believe in scientists. They use Euclidean geometry because its propositions stand demonstrated – not because they believe in Euclid. On this count, there is a gulf of understanding between believers in CAGW and practitioners of the scientific method.
Pat Frank says: December 28, 2012 at 12:00 am
“mpainter, you need a better dictionary. Parncutt’s proposition is fatuous. We wouldn’t lose the debate you fear, anywhere. I agree that for ideological reasons some audiences might reject their defeat. But that’s not a loss. That’s prejudice. Better we should expose that early.”
=============================================
Are we to reject what the dictionary says on the authority of someone as ill-informed as you? Parncutt is fatuous. Genocide is not. Its advocacy is criminal and intolerable. I cite United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96, December 11, 1946:
“Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings; such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind, … and is contrary to moral law and to the spirit and aims of the United Nations. …
The General Assembly, therefore, affirms that genocide is a crime under international law … whether the crime is committed on religious, racial, political or any other grounds.”
Note the “political or any other grounds.” So much for your definition of genocide. So much for your “debate” of whether it is the proper thing to do.
Some commenters have suggested that, even though Professor Parncutt has unconditionally apologized and has withdrawn his postings, he should still be pursued in the criminal courts. However, when I wrote to him I said that provided that he withdrew the offending postings I should leave the matter there. That is what I have done.
A very important objective has been achieved here. The likes of Hansen have made similar calls for the establishment of International Climate Courts, or for putting skeptics on trial for what Hansen calls “high crimes against humanity” and we call scientific research.
The EU (natch) has been considering the idea of a European Climate Court at the instigation of the usual suspects.
It was only when I publicized the contents of the final draft of the Durban UN conference’s text, which also contained a crazy proposal for an International Climate Court that it was hastily dropped.
In Australia, journalists have called for the public branding of skeptics, and also for their execution.
Now that a substantial University has retreated from this hate-speech, and in Hitler’s homeland of all places, I expect there will be fewer of these extremist demands for the trial and execution of skeptics in future.