[ANPPOM-Lista] [Sonologia-l] professor austríaco de musicologia sistemática pede pena de morte

Seg Jan 28 06:29:56 BRST 2013

O Parncutt está com a corda no pescoço pela ousadia, que enfureceu os colegas de Graz, mas deve estar realizado com o barulho que causou no debate ambiental ... 

++++++++++
From: Alexandre Torres Porres <porres em gmail.com>
To: Pesquisadores em Sonologia (Música) <sonologia-l em listas.unicamp.br> 
Cc: anppom-l em iar.unicamp.br 
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Sonologia-l] professor austríaco de musicologia sistemática pede pena de morte

Poxa, o texto fica mais curioso quando o sujeito é uma das principais referências do seu doutorado...

2013/1/28 Carlos Palombini <cpalombini em gmail.com>

Global warming deniers should be sentenced to 
death: Richard Parncutt,  Professor of Systematic Musicology, University of Graz, Austria CALLS FOR DEATH PENALTYhttp://planet.infowars.com/weird-news/global-warming-deniers-should-be-sentenced-to-death-richard-parncutt-professor-of-systematic-musicology-university-of-graz-austria-calls-for-death-penalty
>
>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.
>His killer “maths” (if you could call it that)
>… given the inherent uncertainty surrounding climatic 
predictions, even exaggerated accounts must be considered possible, 
albeit with a low probability. Consider this: If ten million people are 
going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people 
dying with a probability of 100%.
>He repeats this:
>For the purpose of argument, let’s give the GW deniers 
the benefit of the doubt and imagine that the scientists are wrong with a high probability, say 90%. If they are right, some 100 million people 
will die as a direct result of GW. Probably more like a billion, but 
this is a conservative estimate. If the probability of that happening is only 10%, then effectively “only” 10 million people will die. These are the numbers that GW deniers are playing with while exercising their 
“freedom of speech”.
>So even if “Deniers” are right, they are still murderous and should still be executed. Ooo-K 
>Apparently it didn’t occur to him that if skeptics are right, and the world doesn’t warm, hardly anyone will die from global warming. That’s 
“zero”, right?  (I know children in infants-school who can get this.)
>Worse, the failure of his theory could kill far more people than the failure of skeptics: hundreds of thousands of people in the third world have already starved as we fed their corn into cars, kids are suffering from green pollution in Brazil, others will die waiting for medicine or mosquito nets while we build 
sea walls to hold back a tide that may never come. Others are suffering a life of blindness, dysentery, malaria, or dehydration and could be 
cured if we spend money on doctors, or clean water supplies, rather than solar farms. If the world cools and we are not prepared, millions will 
starve from wheat crops that were killed by frost.
>How meaningless is a Professorship at a university these days? Where 
“higher education” doesn’t teach people to reason, doesn’t teach them 
the value of free speech, and doesn’t teach them the humility to say 
nothing when they know nothing.
>I don’t think it’s worth writing to a man who can’t reason, but there are people at his university who need to know what Parncutt is saying. 
Is the University of Graz a serious university?
>Prof Parncutt also thinks we need global taxes on wealth (guess that 
means a global bureaucracy, to manage those global funds?). Since he 
recommends The World Future Council, that’s a red-flag, I recommend skeptics read it carefully. They say 
they’re the voice of future generations. But they’re not speaking on 
behalf of my descendants.
>——————————————
>H/t to Andy Wilkins. Thank you.
> 
>UPDATE: Page disappears but we have a copy
>AS this spreads through the skeptic world, the web page has been 
pulled down. Luckily  (in a strange use of the word) Tallbloke has a 
copy of the whole page as it was, So you can still read it. WUWT has a discussion too, and Anthony was prescient enough to save those pages before the University blitzed them. Thank him for the webcite link.
>-- 
>
>carlos palombini
>www.researcherid.com/rid/F-7345-2011 
>_______________________________________________
>sonologia-l mailing list
>sonologia-l em listas.unicamp.br
>https://www.listas.unicamp.br/mailman/listinfo/sonologia-l
>
>

_______________________________________________
sonologia-l mailing list
sonologia-l em listas.unicamp.br
https://www.listas.unicamp.br/mailman/listinfo/sonologia-l
-------------- Próxima Parte ----------
Um anexo em HTML foi limpo...
URL: <http://www.listas.unicamp.br/pipermail/anppom-l/attachments/20130128/a764a6c4/attachment.html>