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/

ABC Self Policing - The Danger Within (Part 2)

In this article reproduced from The Australian, (I didn't have to sign up for it!) we see just how low the ABC has sunk.  I would go as far as to say the ABC's reputation as a balanced broadcaster is irretrievable.  It's gone.

I do not believe Australian taxpayers should continue to employ Radio National "Science" broadcaster, Robyn Williams.  The man has proved more than once that he cannot produce a balanced programme when it comes to CAGW.
..................................................................................

It's OK to link climate denial to pedophilia, ABC tells ex-chairman Maurice Newman

BY: RICK MORTON From: The Australian December 18, 2012 12:00AM 102

Former ABC chairman Maurice Newman says the national broadcaster suffers from 'groupthink' when it comes to climate change. Picture: Nikki Short Source: The Australian
A COMPLAINT by former ABC chairman Maurice Newman over a radio program that linked scepticism about human-induced climate change to advocacy of pedophilia has been dismissed by the national broadcaster.

Mr Newman, who retired from the ABC's top job in March when his five-year term ended, said the broadcaster had been "captured" by a "small but powerful" group of people when it came to climate change groupthink - a claim rebuffed by the broadcaster.

He said comments by the network's science reporter Robyn Williams in a November 24 broadcast of The Science Show were indicative of a broader failure of the "public interest" test at the taxpayer-funded ABC.

"What if I told you that pedophilia is good for children, or that smoking crack is a normal part and a healthy one of teenage life, to be encouraged?" Williams said at the top of the show, which was dedicated to discussing attitudes on climate change.


RECOMMENDED COVERAGE

ABC clique in control of climate

"You'd rightly find it outrageous. But there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths again and again in recent times, distorting the science."

In his written complaint to ABC managing director Mark Scott, Mr Newman raised the issue of personally "offensive and defamatory" material and content that compared climate sceptics to pedophiles "more generally".

The radio segment had also referred to an article that Mr Newman had written in The Australian last month comparing climate change believers to the religious. Mr Williams referred to it as "drivel" and his guest, psychology professor Stephen Lewandosky, said that those who denied climate change were "driven by ideology rather than evidence".

Mr Newman objected to the imputation that he was a flat-earther.

"Speaking up publicly is not the sort of thing you do lightly," he told The Australian yesterday.

"I still have a deep affection for the ABC but at some point someone has got to make a stand. The ABC is not being frank and open about the way global warming is portrayed on its various platforms, although the sense of imbalance is becoming more overt, I feel."

Mr Newman said he was the first person to admit he was not a scientist and described himself as a human-induced climate change "agnostic". "I considered the report to be defamatory because it went on to discuss me personally and an opinion piece I'd written comparing some in the climate change camp to religious believers," he said. "In lumping me in with despicable flat-earthers, they also, through their introduction, likened people like us to pedophiles and drug-pushers."

An ABC spokeswoman said the complaint was dismissed because the editorial context of the segment was reasonable, meaning "harm and offence" was justified.

"ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs have carefully considered the complaint, reviewed the program and assessed it against the ABC's editorial standards for harm and offence which state in part: 7.1 Content that is likely to cause harm or offence must be justified by the editorial context," the spokeswoman said.

"ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs have also sought and considered a response from ABC Radio. Audience and Consumer Affairs have concluded that there has been no breach of the ABC's editorial standards for harm and offence." The former chairman said he had not made the complaint to the ABC to air a personal grievance; rather he wished to highlight that the national broadcaster had a duty to all taxpayers to provide more considered and balanced reports.

"In this particular segment, I don't think the issue received fair treatment," Mr Newman said. "It certainly wasn't open-minded and I believe it misrepresented the perspective of people who have considered doubt."

ABC policies also make note, on scientific and other matters, that standards must strike a "balance that follows the weight of the evidence".

"Who does the weighing?" Mr Newman said. "Who re-weights and when? Or, is it set and forget?"

The ABC spokeswoman said the network did broadcast and publish views from dissenting scientists.

"Unlike the BBC, the ABC acknowledges there are climate scientists who question the core thinking about climate science," she said.

"The ABC gives them and their views air time."

In its direct response to Mr Newman, the ABC maintained it did "not equate climate change sceptics to pedophiles".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/broadcast/its-ok-to-link-climate-denial-to-pedophilia-abc-tells-ex-chairman-maurice-newman/story-fna045gd-1226538690358

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.