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/

Climate Change - Allow The Facts To Speak

Here's an interesting piece appearing in the Wall Street Journal and written by Matt Ridley.
.....................................................................................

OPINION December 18, 2012, 6:09 p.m. ET
Matt Ridley: Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change
Evidence points to a further rise of just 1°C by 2100. The net effect on the planet may actually be beneficial.

By MATT RIDLEY

Forget the Doha climate jamboree that ended earlier this month. The theological discussions in Qatar of the arcana of climate treaties are irrelevant. By far the most important debate about climate change is taking place among scientists, on the issue of climate sensitivity: How much warming will a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide actually produce? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has to pronounce its answer to this question in its Fifth Assessment Report next year.

The general public is not privy to the IPCC debate. But I have been speaking to somebody who understands the issues: Nic Lewis. A semiretired successful financier from Bath, England, with a strong mathematics and physics background, Mr. Lewis has made significant contributions to the subject of climate change.

He first collaborated with others to expose major statistical errors in a 2009 study of Antarctic temperatures. In 2011 he discovered that the IPCC had, by an unjustified statistical manipulation, altered the results of a key 2006 paper by Piers Forster of Reading University and Jonathan Gregory of the Met Office (the United Kingdom's national weather service), to vastly increase the small risk that the paper showed of climate sensitivity being high. Mr. Lewis also found that the IPCC had misreported the results of another study, leading to the IPCC issuing an Erratum in 2011.

Mr. Lewis tells me that the latest observational estimates of the effect of aerosols (such as sulfurous particles from coal smoke) find that they have much less cooling effect than thought when the last IPCC report was written. The rate at which the ocean is absorbing greenhouse-gas-induced warming is also now known to be fairly modest. In other words, the two excuses used to explain away the slow, mild warming we have actually experienced—culminating in a standstill in which global temperatures are no higher than they were 16 years ago—no longer work.

In short: We can now estimate, based on observations, how sensitive the temperature is to carbon dioxide. We do not need to rely heavily on unproven models. Comparing the trend in global temperature over the past 100-150 years with the change in "radiative forcing" (heating or cooling power) from carbon dioxide, aerosols and other sources, minus ocean heat uptake, can now give a good estimate of climate sensitivity.

The conclusion—taking the best observational estimates of the change in decadal-average global temperature between 1871-80 and 2002-11, and of the corresponding changes in forcing and ocean heat uptake—is this: A doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of 1.6°-1.7°C (2.9°-3.1°F).

This is much lower than the IPCC's current best estimate, 3°C (5.4°F).

Mr. Lewis is an expert reviewer of the recently leaked draft of the IPCC's WG1 Scientific Report. The IPCC forbids him to quote from it, but he is privy to all the observational best estimates and uncertainty ranges the draft report gives. What he has told me is dynamite.

Given what we know now, there is almost no way that the feared large temperature rise is going to happen. Mr. Lewis comments: "Taking the IPCC scenario that assumes a doubling of CO2, plus the equivalent of another 30% rise from other greenhouse gases by 2100, we are likely to experience a further rise of no more than 1°C."

A cumulative change of less than 2°C by the end of this century will do no net harm. It will actually do net good—that much the IPCC scientists have already agreed upon in the last IPCC report. Rainfall will increase slightly, growing seasons will lengthen, Greenland's ice cap will melt only very slowly, and so on.

Some of the best recent observationally based research also points to climate sensitivity being about 1.6°C for a doubling of CO2. An impressive study published this year by Magne Aldrin of the Norwegian Computing Center and colleagues gives a most-likely estimate of 1.6°C. Michael Ring and Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois, using the most trustworthy temperature record, also estimate 1.6°C.

The big question is this: Will the lead authors of the relevant chapter of the forthcoming IPCC scientific report acknowledge that the best observational evidence no longer supports the IPCC's existing 2°-4.5°C "likely" range for climate sensitivity? Unfortunately, this seems unlikely—given the organization's record of replacing evidence-based policy-making with policy-based evidence-making, as well as the reluctance of academic scientists to accept that what they have been maintaining for many years is wrong.

***
How can there be such disagreement about climate sensitivity if the greenhouse properties of CO2 are well established? Most people assume that the theory of dangerous global warming is built entirely on carbon dioxide. It is not.

There is little dispute among scientists about how much warming CO2 alone can produce, all other things being equal: about 1.1°-1.2°C for a doubling from preindustrial levels. The way warming from CO2 becomes really dangerous is through amplification by positive feedbacks—principally from water vapor and the clouds this vapor produces.

It goes like this: A little warming (from whatever cause) heats up the sea, which makes the air more humid—and water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas. The resulting model-simulated changes in clouds generally increase warming further, so the warming is doubled, trebled or more.

That assumption lies at the heart of every model used by the IPCC, but not even the most zealous climate scientist would claim that this trebling is an established fact. For a start, water vapor may not be increasing. A recent paper from Colorado State University concluded that "we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data." And then, as one Nobel Prize-winning physicist with a senior role in combating climate change admitted to me the other day: "We don't even know the sign" of water vapor's effect—in other words, whether it speeds up or slows down a warming of the atmosphere.

Climate models are known to poorly simulate clouds, and given clouds' very strong effect on the climate system—some types cooling the Earth either by shading it or by transporting heat up and cold down in thunderstorms, and others warming the Earth by blocking outgoing radiation—it remains highly plausible that there is no net positive feedback from water vapor.

If this is indeed the case, then we would have seen about 0.6°C of warming so far, and our observational data would be pointing at about 1.2°C of warming for the end of the century. And this is, to repeat, roughly where we are.

The scientists at the IPCC next year have to choose whether they will admit—contrary to what complex, unverifiable computer models indicate—that the observational evidence now points toward lukewarm temperature change with no net harm. On behalf of all those poor people whose lives are being ruined by high food and energy prices caused by the diversion of corn to biofuel and the subsidizing of renewable energy driven by carboncrats and their crony-capitalist friends, one can only hope the scientists will do so.

Mr. Ridley writes the Mind and Matter column in The Wall Street Journal and has written on climate issues for various publications for 25 years. His family leases land for coal mining in northern England, on a project that will cease in five years.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981504578179291222227104.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_carousel_2

The Disappearance Of Research Journalism

 It’s time we addressed malfunction, misinformation and a distinct lack of research and corrections in some sectors of our mainstream media – in particular,  printed and online newspaper publications.  I’m looking at you, Fairfax Media and the ABC online.

When one sings from a particular hymn sheet, one produces biased, blinkered tosh such as this from the ABC’s Science & Environment Reporter, Sarah Clarke:

I seem to recall Sydney Radio broadcaster, Alan Jones, was recently marched off to Re-education Camp because of some slight error he made with regard to actual global temperatures – as they were when his broadcast went to air.  I wonder if the ABC’s Sarah Clarke and Fairfax reporters, Ben Cubby and Tom Arup should also be systematically marched off to Re-education Camp because of their one-eyed reporting of climate related stories.  Research?  Where has it gone?   Clarke, Cubby and Arup and a heap of other so-called journalists would rather not open any doors that may challenge their CAGW religion, apparently.  Result:  Readers get bias, not the full story. 

Journalism by Press Release is commonplace nowadays.  No critical analysis, no research.   Are journalists too stressed or pressured to do a bit of old fashioned foot-slogging?   Can’t be too hard with the Internet, surely.  Perhaps they are too concerned about their tenure to go rocking boats.  Maybe that old saying “keep them in the dark an feed them bullshit” is applicable to today’s journalistic attitude to their readers.  What they (the readers) don’t know won’t kill them besides I’m too busy and too stressed to give a balanced perspective.  Is that the new norm we, the readers, are expected to accept?  It’s no wonder newspapers are dying and no wonder so many of us are gravitating to Blogs.  That’s where you find investigation and research being practiced these days. 

It annoys the hell out of me that a number of journalists publish without question the Gospel according to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.  There is actual science being published on the subject but it is being mostly ignored in the MSM.   Why is that?  Because it contradicts the faith?  How can readers make informed decisions when so much data appears to be deliberately withheld from the public? 

There are a number of internet outlets available for those wishing to evaluate for themselves where the truth lies with regard to whether or not this Planet is about to cook itself into oblivion.

Two award-winning Blogs worth mentioning are: 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://joannenova.com.au/

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!