Sceptics Should Die!

Richard Parncutt is, apparently, an ex-pat Australian with a rather interesting and not so flattering  academic history - if you can be bothered to research it!

Quite frankly, so-called academics such as this Professor do more to promote CAGW scepticism when they place their idiocies on the Internet and subject them to 'peer-review'!  You could call this one an own goal, if you like!

This man is not a climate scientist by any stretch of the imagination, yet he would like to condemn to death scientists who are absolutely qualified to research in the field and express opinions.

It appears someone at the University of Graz, Austria recognised the good Professor's utter stupidity was potentially damaging to the University's reputation and removed Parncutt's inflammatory rant from his University website - possibly due to several violations not least violation of human rights!

This man, along with some other 'erudite' Professors not qualified in the field of climate science, such as Stephan Lewandowsky from the University of Western Australia, appear to be indicative of a systematic failure in quality education over the past couple of decades.

No wonder we worry for the fate of our children in the real world when there is a distinct lack of quality educators.

I am now going to prepare myself for impending execution because I have the unmitigated audacity to question the methods some people are applying to the 'science' of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and consequential ramifications to world economies!

The piece below is reblogged from Jo Nova's excellent science site.  See link below.
......................................................................................

Death threats anyone? Austrian Prof: global warming deniers should be sentenced to death

Richard Parncutt,  Professor of Systematic Musicology, University of Graz, Austria, reckons people like Watts, Tallbloke, Singer, Michaels, Monckton, McIntyre and me (there are too many to list) should be executed. He’s gone full barking mad, and though he says these are his “personal opinions” they are listed on his university web site.

For all the bleating of those who say they’ve had real “death threats“, we get discussions about executing skeptics from Professors, wielding the tyrannical power of the state. Was he paid by the state to write these simplistic, immature, “solutions”? Do taxpayers fund his web expenses? (And what the heck is systematic musicology?)

Prof Richard Parncutt says:
“I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases…”

“Even mass murderers [like Breivik] should not be executed, in my opinion.”

“GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.”

Consequences

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. 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) – using much the same means that were previously used to spread the message of denial. At the end of that process, some GW deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed. Perhaps that would be the only way to stop the rest of them. The death penalty would have been justified in terms of the enormous numbers of saved future lives.

Recant you foolish deniers or we’ll kill you! Yeah. Welcome to modern scientific debate.

Who should die? Anyone named on Desmog:

Much more would have happened by now if not for the GW deniers. An amazing number of people still believe that GW is a story made up by scientists with ulterior motives. For a long list of climate change deniers and their stories see desmogblog.

So the denier database becomes the “death list”. The list decided by PR experts on a funded smear site, who profit from marketing Green corporations.

But it’s ok, he includes a caveat where he says he didn’t say what I quoted above, so he can later pretend he isn’t discussing real deaths of real people:

Please note that I am not directly suggesting that the threat of execution be carried out. I am simply presenting a logical argument. I am neither a politician nor a lawyer. I am just thinking aloud about an important problem.

And we all feel so much better don’t we?

But seriously, Global warming deniers are the worst vermin on the face of the Earth, worse than holocaust deniers, tobacco deniers and worse than someone who bombs buildings and shoots children en masse:

I don’t think that mass murderers of the usual kind, such Breivik, should face the death penalty. Nor do I think tobacco denialists are guilty enough to warrant the death penalty, in spite of the enormous number of deaths that resulted more or less directly from tobacco denialism. GW is different. With high probability it will cause hundreds of millions of deaths. For this reason I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers.

Here’s how the deadly reasoning goes
How does he know we are facing disaster?
He knows, because he’s read a blog that pretends to be scientific and it says so. The same site resorts to ad homs, and kindergarden namecalling (like “denier” and “Christie Crocks”) and is debunked all over the internet, but the Prof is too poorly trained in reasoning to spot the cheap tricks, and he didn’t think to search for “SkepticalScience debunked”. Oops.

More at Jo Nova, including comments, here:-

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/death-threats-anyone-austrian-prof-global-warming-deniers-should-be-sentenced-to-death/

Open Letter To Dr. Karl Kruszelnicki

(For those of you who have no idea who I am talking about – here’s Dr. Karl’s Wiki entry.)

Dear Dr. Karl,

For many years, I’ve had the greatest respect for you.  I’ve found you enlightening, entertaining and downright good value.

I’ve just seen your television appearance tonight on the ABC News 24 “The Drum” hosted by Steve Cannane.  I am re-evaluating my opinion,  regrettably.

I’ve always believed good science practitioners openly admit to being sceptical and, in their view must embrace scepticism in order to remain credible.    From your comments on perceived disinformation and the current meme of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), you rattled off stuff like 80% of the Arctic has melted during the past Arctic summer, permafrost is in a raging melt, releasing copious amounts of methane and a little ocean gastropod can’t reproduce its shell because of this thing called global warming due to acidification of the oceans.  All the absolute fault of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, of course.  Hellacious, any sensible person would agree – if it were true.

Right up front, I admit I am not a qualified, experienced scientist as I know you are, although I do work in the field, so to speak,  as a lay botanist and entomologist.  That qualifies me for nothing – and I accept that.  However, it worries me when a great mind such as yours slams shut.  I didn’t hear you state anywhere in your Drum segment that we must respect the diversity of qualified scientific opinion.  As you know, scientific opinion is constantly being reviewed.  I am not a flat-earther.    I regularly state that this Planet’s climate is changing constantly – has done since the Globe cooled down enough to establish life forms – and climate will continue to change until the Globe dies.

Dr. Karl, there is new information coming out pretty regularly which is challenging the dogma of man-made global warming.  Have you read up on any of it?   You are aware that Planet Earth has not significantly warmed for over 16 years – which is in direct contradiction to the hysterical reports from the IPCC that have influenced the economic policies of most of the affluent countries.  That fact in itself, deserves some serious scrutiny.  You are aware of the admission as to the numerous errors in the IPCC’s AR4 report, aren’t you?  You are aware of the considerable storms the Arctic has been exposed to during the past Arctic summer which is probably a more likely contributing factor to some melt rather than the amount of carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere.  It’s going to be bad news if there is a big freeze during the Arctic winter.  Some people may have egg on face – but who am I, a poorly educated lover of all things natural, to comment – let alone criticise?  However, I am not one to follow the bouncing ball on instruction without questioning why the ball is actually bouncing.  I mean no offence.

Dr. Karl, you have a very good brain, there’s no doubt about that.  I had hoped you would have been slightly sceptical on such an important matter.  I’d have thought with your ability to actually conduct meaningful research, you should have found papers written by scientists who are not welded on to the notion man is entirely responsible for destruction of this Planet’s climate.  Scientists that are presenting empirical scientific research rather then reliance solely on computer models of dubious accuracy and created to scare the bejesus out of each and every one of us.  Computer models on which many of these so-called experts have hoisted their reputations and now watching their houses of cards crumble as fact blows a pure, clean wind. 

 I’d have hoped you might have taken a look at the role the Sun may just play in the Earth's climate; the role of the el Nino – la Nina phenomena.  I hadn’t thought you would slam your intellect shut to anything that didn’t emanate from people such as James Hansen and Michael Mann, both fairly well on the outer as “experts” in their field.  I had thought you would question the inane prophesies of people such as Tim Flannery and I had hoped I would not have to slot you into the same category as that sorely repugnant person, Robyn Williams who frequently inflicts his bias and absent research on unsuspecting listeners to the ABC’s Radio National Science Show.  Williams really did it when he donated ABC airtime to Professor Stephan Lewandowksy!   Oh – my – God.  That’s when Williams lost what small amount of credibility he’d managed to cling to and threw himself over the cliff.  Keeping people such as Robyn Williams on the payroll is why the ABC continues to sacrifice itself on the Alter of Biased Leftard Green Wanker group-think..  Blatant socialism within the ranks of the Australian public broadcaster. Adherence to the ABC’s Code of Practice doesn’t exist.   It's no surprise taxpayers who have to fund such bile are so disgusted and disillusioned.  They are paying for propaganda they do not support nor accept.  No wonder, ex-Chairman, Maurice Newman is so disillusioned!

Dr. Karl – I expected better from you.  It’s your job to teach us plebs how to question, how to evaluate, I would have thought.  You have no idea how disillusioned I am thinking you might be pushing a form of science that may well be revealed to be complete bullshit.   An utter con orchestrated by the United Nations.  They have to convince western democracies to embrace  their appallingly Socialist Agenda 21.  What better way than the manifestation of ultimate deception?  It’s shaping up that way right now.  I would be happy to be proved wrong, but somehow, I don’t think that’s going to eventuate.  We are dealing with the UN and each and every one of us should be awake at their post!

I despair for this Planet.  I really do.  When genius minds such as Dr. Karl Kruszelnicki’s are not prepared to visit the contra-science on CAGW and openly comment on it without fear nor favour (not that I have seen from this scientist, anyway) we must wonder what or who got to them!   Has the almighty dollar stretched so far as to influence the best and most brilliant minds involved in Australian science?

                     

The truth is out there, Dr. Karl.  It depends whether or not you have the cojones to step outside your comfort zone.

For a bit of extra reading, Dr. Karl – go here!  You might be in for a bit of a reality check with regard to the idiocy of some so-called experts who are sucking from the public teat.

Dr. Karl features in the last segment on this episode of The Drum.

AR5, IPCC & The United Nations

I am linking to Watt’s Up With That because of the considerable material and discussion concerning the recently leaked AR5 2^nd Draft Paper at the site. 

I salute the leaker, by the way.  The IPCC will now be obliged to honour many statements they have previously made but circumvented about openness and transparency with regard to their dealings and reports. 

The time is nigh for intelligent leaders of nations to kick the United Nations to the kerb and deny them further funding.  Unintelligent leaders will, of course, kowtow to the UN, fawn to the Green Mafia and continue to send them buckets of money.  Australia is afflicted with such lack of intelligence in the form of the Gillard Government.

Remember, the United Nations want to control the Internet.  I think they will seriously pull every rabbit they can out of the hat now after release of the IPCC’s draft report.  I have no doubt they will make it their mission to ensure free speech is killed one way or another.   By the way, I wonder if our man Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and pusher of the Mandatory Internet Filter voted with the intelligent nations against Big UN Brother as the US, Europe and Canada have or did Australia vote with Middle Eastern and communist countries who want the Internet controlled?  I can’t wait to find out!

The United Nations are getting too big for their boots.  They are not the Government of the World.  Yet!

WUWT TV

On November 14th and 15th, 2012 Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That?) presented a 24 hour counter broadcast to that of the slick presentation of Al Gore's "24 hours of Climate Reality" (caveat emptor).

Mr. Watts is now in the process of releasing his 24 hour broadcasts and I will repost them as they appear.

Here is the first segment - an interview with US Senator Inhofe.

28Gate & The Disgraced BBC (2)

Article by Christopher Booker reblogged from the Telegraph:This story must not be allowed to die.  There are, of course, implications relevant to "our" ABC.
.............................................................................................................


By Christopher Booker7:00PM GMT 17 Nov 2012103 Comments
Unfolding in the shadow of the greatest crisis in the BBC’s 90-year history has been another scandal, rather less publicised, which again reveals how profoundly the BBC has gone off the rails, morally and professionally. Last week, I reported how the BBC had spent large sums of our money fielding an array of lawyers against a pensioner from Wales to hide what I called, with considerable understatement, “a dirty little secret”. But that secret has now been disclosed to the world, confirming how seriously the BBC has been misrepresenting its policy on one of the most far-reaching issues of our time.
A year ago, I published a detailed report attempting to unravel what has long been a serious puzzle. How was it that, over the past six years, the BBC has been so ready to betray its statutory duty to impartiality by such relentlessly one-sided promotion of the scare over global warming and all it entails, such as the Government’s policy on wind farms? No organisation has done more to obscure the truth about an issue whose political and financial implications for us all are incalculable.
The BBC’s decision to defy its charter obligation to report on this subject impartially followed from a secret day-long seminar held at Television Centre on January 26, 2006. It was attended by all the BBC’s top brass, including George Entwistle, the short-lived director-general, then head of TV current affairs, and several executives who have had to “step aside” because of the Savile affair, such as Helen Boaden, then director of news, and Steve Mitchell, then head of radio news.
In 2008, the BBC Trust published a report claiming that this unprecedented decision to flout its charter was taken after a “high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts” on climate change. Among those who tried to get the BBC to identify these “experts” was Tony Newbery, the blogger who recently faced the might of a highly paid legal team which persuaded an information tribunal to uphold the BBC’s right to keep secret the names of those attending this seminar.
When, last week, those names were finally revealed – thanks to another blogger, Maurizio Morabito (see omnilogos.com) and the Wayback Machine, which stores information deleted from the internet – the result was even more startling than had been suspected. Only three of the “28 specialists” invited to advise the BBC were active scientists, none of them climate experts and all committed global-warming alarmists. Virtually all the rest were professional climate-change lobbyists, ranging from emissaries of Greenpeace and the Stop Climate Chaos campaign to the “CO2 project manager” for BP, one of the world’s largest oil companies.

RELATED ARTICLES
Patten personifies what is wrong with BBC elite 24 Oct 2012
Lord Patten is the last man I'd choose to clean up the BBC 27 Oct 2012


As shown in my report, “The BBC and Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal” (on the Global Warming Policy Foundation website), the consequences of what this roomful of “climate activists” advocated as BBC policy were devastating. The seminar’s co-organisers, Roger Harrabin and Joe Smith, were later able to boast that one of the first fruits of their good work was the BBC’s Climate Chaos season, a stream of unashamedly propagandist documentaries, led off with two fronted by Sir David Attenborough which featured a string of ludicrous scare stories.
This was merely the prelude to hundreds of further examples, up to the present day, of how the BBC has abandoned any pretence at honest or properly researched reporting – all in accord with the party line agreed on at that seminar, the nature of which the BBC was so desperate to keep secret.
As with the Savile scandal, there seems no end to the further embarrassments the BBC cover-up has been bringing to light. Harrabin and Smith ran a small outfit set up to lobby the media on global warming, funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, WWF and the University of East Anglia (home of the Climategate emails scandal).
Stranger still, their co-sponsor of the BBC seminar was another lobbying group calling itself the International Broadcasting Trust, which in the past seven years has received £520,000 from the Department for International Development’s foreign-aid budget for “media research” – which includes lobbying the BBC on issues such as climate change. This body in turn is part of a “coalition” known as the Broadcasting Trust, and one of its partners in that is the Media Trust – of which the BBC is a “corporate member”.
So our climate-change obsessed governments have given public money to bodies to lobby the BBC, including one closely associated with a body that the BBC itself belongs to – all to ensure that the BBC promotes government policy.
There is a scandal here that is, in its own way, as disturbing as the one over the Savile affair. But whereas that is being looked into by a series of inquiries, we can be sure that no one will inquire into this second scandal. Remember, after all, how the BBC Trust (now chaired by that committed warmist Lord Patten) aided the cover-up with that lie about “the best scientific experts” in its 2008 report – which was, laughably, supposed to be addressing the BBC’s statutory commitment to impartiality.
Isn’t it odd how often, through all this, one word recurs: “trust”?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9684775/The-BBCs-dirty-little-secret-lands-it-in-a-new-scandal.html

28Gate And The Disgraced BBC

Here are some well-known Blog sites covering this amazing story with a good deal of background information.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/breaking-the-secret-list-of-the-bbc-28-is-now-public/

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/bbc-secret-exposed-greenpeace-activists-bp-decide-what-sciencebrits-see-hello-twentyeightgate/

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/11/13/28gate-media-coverage.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100189491/28-gates-later-the-bbcs-nightmare-gets-worse-and-worse/

In view of the current paedophilia scandal surrounding the BBC – the world’s most trusted broadcaster, apparently, this additional story of how the BBC compromised itself and its charter comes as no surprise.

Clearly, the BBC is unashamedly an arm of Green Labor.   In Australia, concerned eyes must turn to our own Auntie, the ABC.  Both organisations rely on public funding.  Both should be impartial as a matter of responsibility and decency.

There has been obvious bias within the ABC’s non-reporting of certain matters of public interest.  The Gillard/Australian Worker’s Union slush fund debacle is just one quick example of the ABC breaching it’s own charter of open, un-biased news coverage.  This issue will be the subject of a future post.

With regard to the matter of alleged catastrophic anthropogenic global warming which has morphed into tabloid climatology, as repugnant as that is;  scare us all under our beds, hold us to ransom if we don’t convert to this new religion - has been the stock-in-trade of the ABC’s coverage.  I have been utterly disgusted with the lack of story corrections, updates or amendments when actual facts bubble to the surface.  Anyone following so-called catastrophic climate change carefully will instantly know the ABC has been negligent.  Why, one might ask?  Well, these corrections and amendments tend not to fit with “group-think” which is rampant within the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.   Under their charter, the ABC is required to be balanced.  It is not.

For posterity, here is the list of eminent climatology scientists who established the BBC’s one-sided – and never-to-be compromised reportage of anthropogenic global warming.  No ‘deniers” allowed!  Where’s the balance?   Look at the bias!  Smell the stench of blatant charlatanism.

This is an absolute disgrace.

Specialists:

Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London

Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA

Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace

Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen

Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge

Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant

Trevor Evans, US Embassy

Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change

Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net

Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation

Claire Foster, Church of England

Saleemul Huq, IIED

Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University

Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China

Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia

Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International

Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos

Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund

Matthew Farrow, CBI

Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer

Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment

Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables

Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs

Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs

Joe Smith, The Open University

Mark Galloway, Director, IBT

Anita Neville, E3G

Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University

Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID

Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia

BBC attendees:

Jana Bennett, Director of Television

Sacha Baveystock, Executive Producer, Science

Helen Boaden, Director of News

Andrew Lane, Manager, Weather, TV News

Anne Gilchrist, Executive Editor Indies & Events, CBBC

Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment

Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning

Elizabeth McKay, Project Executive, Education

Emma Swain, Commissioning Editor, Specialist Factual

Fergal Keane, (Chair), Foreign Affairs Correspondent

Fran Unsworth, Head of Newsgathering

George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs

Glenwyn Benson, Controller, Factual TV

John Lynch, Creative Director, Specialist Factual

Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy

Jon Williams, TV Editor Newsgathering

Karen O’Connor, Editor, This World, Current Affairs

Catriona McKenzie, Tightrope Pictures catriona@tightropepictures.com

BBC Television Centre, London (cont)

Liz Molyneux, Editorial Executive, Factual Commissioning

Matt Morris, Head of News, Radio Five Live

Neil Nightingale, Head of Natural History Unit

Paul Brannan, Deputy Head of News Interactive

Peter Horrocks, Head of Television News

Peter Rippon, Duty Editor, World at One/PM/The World this Weekend

Phil Harding, Director, English Networks & Nations

Steve Mitchell, Head Of Radio News

Sue Inglish, Head Of Political Programmes

Frances Weil, Editor of News Special Events