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

Seg Jan 28 01:35:04 BRST 2013

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 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c7d442f2/attachment.html>