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

Seg Jan 28 01:15:24 BRST 2013

Global warming deniers should be sentenced to death: Richard Parncutt,
Professor of Systematic Musicology, University of Graz, Austria CALLS FOR
DEATH PENALTY
http://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, <http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/>
Professor of Systematic
Musicology <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_musicology>, University
of Graz <http://www.uni-graz.at/>, 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<http://www.uni-graz.at>
.

For all the bleating of those who say they’ve had real “death
threats<http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/pathological-exaggerators-caught-on-death-threats-how-11-rude-emails-became-a-media-blitz/http://>“,
we get discussions about executing skeptics from
Professors,<http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/climatechange.html>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 <http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/climatechange.html>

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<http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database>
.

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 <http://www.skepticalscience.com> 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<http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook/>
all
over<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/04/skeptical-science-gets-it-all-wrong-yet-again/>
the<http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html>
internet<http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html>,
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<http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/killing-people-with-concern-biofuels-lead-to-nearly-200000-deaths-est-in-2010/>of
people in the third world have already starved as we fed their corn
into
cars, kids are suffering from green pollution in
Brazil<http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/sugar-cane-ethanol-biofuel-produces-10-times-the-pollution-of-gasoline-and-diesel/>,
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 <http://www.uni-graz.at/> 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 <http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/english.html?lang=1>,
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.<http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/prof-richard-parncutt-death-penalty-for-global-warming-deniers/>
WUWT
has a discussion
too<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/23/beyond-bizarre-university-of-graz-music-professor-calls-for-skeptic-death-sentences/>,
and Anthony was prescient enough to save those pages before the University
blitzed them. Thank him for the webcite
link<http://www.webcitation.org/6D8yy8NUJ>
.

-- 
carlos palombini
www.researcherid.com/rid/F-7345-2011
-------------- Próxima Parte ----------
Um anexo em HTML foi limpo...
URL: <http://www.listas.unicamp.br/pipermail/anppom-l/attachments/20130128/538e8df7/attachment.html>