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.
“I have been a member of Amnesty International for at least 14 years, ……………………………”
Add sanctimony to his list of shortcomings.
The oft repeated quote about freedom of speech should be amended to read:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say anything that does not encite hatred or murder”
Or some such variation on these meme.
.
So we managed to shout down an irrelevant professor of music because we didn’t like what he had to say. Heck some of us were offended even.
Now what? Look around you, who is in control of the law making apparatus in countries like Australia and USA? What happens if (it seems when in Australia ) new laws are enacted that shut down blogs like WUWT and Jo Novas because ‘they’ don’t like what we have to say. Will we scream “FREE SPEECH”?
Or maybe we should just demand to be half pregnant. Anything else would be hypocrisy.
Pat Frank says:
December 27, 2012 at 4:47 pm
+10
David L. Hagen says: December 27, 2012 at 3:23 pm
==============================
Note that the University of Graz issued a “a strong and unequivocal statement” that condemned Parncutt’s statement, as per Hoffer’s request:
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
So your argument about freedom of speech is with them. Your support of Parncutt’s advocacy of genocide is ill-considered. mpainter
Parncutt will just be required to take remedial “communications” courses. Any half-competent marxist-academic is well-taught to publicly hide their true intentions & wear their outward socially-acceptable personae. Just another sheep loose from the flock & needing
re-educationherding…Two simple points: one, an apology for ‘causing offence’ is not the same as recognising that ‘you’re right, my ideas and arguments are mistaken’; two, his proposal involves destroying the basic function of science by threatening punishment to one side of a debate, assuming without proof that one side is ‘correct’ (the old IPCC ‘consensus’ idea). So, let’s see: on, for example, genetically modified food crops, one could say ‘Those who object to genetic modification to increase crop yields are now killing millions of future people who will starve without such crops’; or, one could say, ‘Those who promote genetic modification are now killing millions of future people because such crops will destroy ecosystems.’ The idea of ‘now killing millions of future people’ and the proposal to punish proponents does nothing useful in a scientific debate, but rather arbitrarily attempts to stifle it.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” – Edmund Burke.
Well done David and all the rest of you.
Pointman
It appears that Dr. Parncutt has produced a screed of inadvertent satire. The most appropriate response is not one of vilification, but of engagement in kind. I suggest, instead, a counter-proposal. Dr. Parncutt suggests the death penalty for CAGW skeptics in 20 years if the predictions of the “worst case” scenario occur. Based on his logic, the death penalty would occur for the outcome of mass deaths due to the combination of starvation and conflict. Unlike most of climate blather, this is a testable hypothesis.
We could call it the Parncutt 20 challenge, as follows:
1. The average unadjusted global temperature must rise by 2 degrees Kelvin in 20 years.
2. The average unadjusted sea level must rise by 20 cm in 20 years.
3. The percentage of the world’s population that lives below subsistence must increase by 20% in 20 years.
4. The percentage of the world’s population that lives in countries below 20 on the freedom index scale must increase by 20% in 20 years.
5. The percentage of the world’s population that dies from conflict in the next 20 years must exceed that of the 20th century annual average multiplied by 20.
Any skeptic could sign a register for this challenge, with the statement that we would be glad to line up for our firing squad by our respective governments if the above occurs. Of course, there must be a stipulated outcome for the contrary opinion. If CAGW advocates sign on, they must commit to:
1. Submitting a yearly accounting of all income and benefits that accrue for advocating and researching the CAGW hypothesis.
2. Submitting an accounting of all income and benefits that accrue for advocating and researching the CAGW hypothesis.
3. Constucting a yearly accounting of all funding spent by all governments in direct subsidies of industries with the express purpose of combatting CAGW.
4. If CAGW does not occur, they commit to their personal (1 and 2) as well as averaged aggregate (3) reimbursement to humanity, with the stipulation that the debt is transferrable to their heirs.
I suspect that more skeptics would bet their lives than advocates would bet their wallets.
The Death Penalty is outlawed in most countries in the world including the whole of Europe so his call is pretty futile anyway.
Just a reminder:
Remember when you also “believed” in “global warming”? I mean, before you started actually looking around and doing some research? I do… and I also believed that anyone who would “go against scientific consensus” and claim there was no emergency must be an idiot, and a reckless one at that.
This guy is a symptom, not the problem. And people really don’t understand that there even IS a valid opposition to cAGW. Like many people I encounter regularly, they are completely brainwashed and don’t even realize it.
The solution is education, and continuing to fight the hugely financed and SINCERE cAGW scare machine. Having been raised being dragged (kicking and screaming some days) to church on a regular basis, I have some idea just how RIGHT people are when gripped in the throes of religious fervor. They don’t “believe”, they “KNOW”.
This kind of thing will not go away soon… it may be decades more before the evidence is obvious enough that even the slowest of the slow will realize there is no “climate emergency”, and that opponents are not evil.
Monckton of Brenchley says: December 28, 2012 at 6:07 am
==============================================
I have learned some things by the Parncutt episode. I have learned that there is strong sentiment in the camp of the AGW to criminalize skeptics and even enforce the death penalty against them. Their would-be legalization of genocide calls to mind the Nazis, whose liquidation of the Jews of Europe was sanctioned by laws of their making.
And now I realize that my name must be on the list of those proscribed, because of my comments on this blog against the egregious AGW theory. I have no doubt that such a list is maintained somewhere, perhaps at the shadowy World Future Council, which see. Parncutt attributed his “death penalty” inspiration to this organization, and even solicited contributions for it.
You, Monckton of Brenchley, would be at the top of any such list. You have touched on other incidents in your knowledge, and I wonder how much more light you could shed on this. Perhaps you, or someone as knowledgeable, could post here on this subject, which topic seems to be of the highest importance.
mpainter
I find it intriguing that, on the one hand, Parncutt is ready to demand that some people should lose their lives now, so as to avert unspeakable suffering of mankind in the future; but on the other hand, that he readily abandons his noble cause and retracts those demands, so that he himself may not suffer the loss of his job. Obviously, his job means more to him than the lives of others or the future of mankind. Now there’s a man of principle, deep conviction, and high moral standards.
Maybe the horrors of the Third Reich could have been averted by giving a faculty position to a certain unemployed aspiring artist from Vienna?
spen says: December 28, 2012 at 8:23 am
the Death Penalty is outlawed in most countries in the world including the whole of Europe so his call is pretty futile anyway.
==============================
Obviously the plan is to pass another law.
spen says:
December 28, 2012 at 8:23 am
I strongly doubt that your fatuous statement about the illegality of the death penalty has any real meaning to a well-intentioned troika.
For instance, the Soviet Union outlawed capital punishment in 1917. How many years was it until they started executing people? (A: 1)
Stalin had 800000 people executed in 1936-39, & outlawed capital punishment in 1947 (presumably because he’d had his fill for the moment). By 1950, they were again officially executing people.
This doesn’t even begin to touch the number of people given de facto death sentences (your assignment, should you choose to accept it (or not), is to survive for 6 months without food, shelter, or clothing in Siberia this Winter) while the Soviet media outlets were crowing that the “Decadent West” cruelly allowed capital punishment.
So, of course, when caring, thoughtful people like Parncutt call for the execution of others for the mere crime of disagreeing, we shouldn’t take them seriously. I mean, there are laws & stuff that they would have to change!
Even worse than University censorship is Government censorship and tyranny.
Internet Users Face New Restrictions In China
The methods used to force Parncutt’s retraction are not far from China’s.
mpainter
Re: “Your support of Parncutt’s advocacy”
You falsely claim I support Parncutt’s advocacy of murder or climate alarmism.
Distinguish between upholding our unalienable rights to religion and speech versus condemning the moral and scientific abuse of those rights.
@Code Tech
you are absolutely right; people are brainwashed to a frightening extent and not aware of it. Some time ago, I raised the issue in an informal discussion with some of my colleagues, who, as chemistry professors, would be in an excellent position to consider the evidence and decide for themselves. This was right after climategate, and I had related to them some choice bits from the famous “harry.readme” file that illustrated a shocking degree of cynicism and professional malfeasance.
My colleagues seemed entirely unperturbed by this information – they had accepted the reality of dangerous global warming without question, and saw no reason to reconsider; they have not changed their minds to this day. In the discussion, one colleague even used the word “denialist”. I was really taken aback to hear such a word used by a man who has otherwise impressed me with his erudition, insight, and intelligence.
I am a trifle concerned that Parncutt repeats his accusation within his withdrawal of it. I suppose that is just the mechanics of a legal response, but it does seem wrong.
If there is indeed a proscribed list of CAGW sceptics, please will who ever is keeping it add my name to the list? I’d like posterity to know that – unlike so many – I was not prone to hysterical overreaction to a temperature fluctuation so minor that it would be humanly undetectable without a huge network of thermometers and the contemperaneous invention of the electronic computer
The Wayback machine should ensure that my descendants will be able to honour my reputation even many generations from now.
Message to my great*n grandchildren….a small memorial plaque will be very acceptable. And ‘He kept his head while all around were losing theirs’ a fitting epitaph.
Pointman says:
December 28, 2012 at 7:50 am
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” – Edmund Burke.
———————————-
I really dislike this quote. “Good men who do nothing” is an oxymoron. I also dislike it when people try to soften their criticism by saying “Wrong, not evil” when “evil” is actually correct. If the results are going to be evil, well intentioned but wrong ideas need to be countered just as much as outright evil ones. “Good men” will do something.
For starters re farm wealth – http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-sector-income-finances/assets,-debt-wealth.aspx
Another, per moderater’s request, re farm wealth – http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/us/across-corn-belt-farmland-prices-keep-soaring.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
James says: “I suspect that more skeptics would bet their lives than advocates would bet their wallets.”
But they are not betting their money! They are betting with money we (taxpayers, consumers, businesses) were forced to put in their wallets. Thus Net loss to AGWers is zero.
BTW: This is one skeptic that is not going to bet his life knowing the AGW SCAM is setup to favor the house and is rigged to boot.
Dr. John M. Ware
December 28, 2012 at 4:30 am
###
Thanks. I understood what you wrote a bit better then the answer I got from my roommate this morning. His was a bit of information overload for me, involving pretty complicated harmonic theory. I guess it was my fault for talking about how the bass line seems to carry melody sometimes in Baroque music. BTW, I am familiar with all of the composers you referenced as my mom had me listen to them. When I was a freshman in high school I had expressed an interest in the Baroque. My mom, being a music major, thought the best way to encourage me was to give me a musical tour. She was right, as 40 years later I am still interested, and Purcell is still one of my favorites.