Christopher Monckton and many other skeptics have been writing to Prof Richard Parncutt who had posted a dissertation telling us “logically” influential climate skeptics should be executed. (His words recorded at Webcite). Below, Monckton points out it is a hate-crime, and he will begin notifying Austrian prosecutors, Interpol, the International Criminal Court, and possibly Australian authorities too. In response, Parncutt unconditionally apologizes and withdraws the suggestion. [For some reason, lots of people can’t see anything at this link, but it works for me. Try cut and pasting <http://www.uni-graz.at/~parncutt/climatechange.html?]
Meanwhile, does John Cook seemingly endorse care enough to post or even tweet or email an objection to the original shocking threat that skeptics should recant or die. So far, no? His ad hominem ambush site (misleadingly called “SkepticalScience“) was referred to as “evidence” by Parncutt. (See also Debunking un-SkepticalScience). Five posts have gone up since Christmas, WUWT has heard from Dana (of Cook’s site), yet neither Dana nor Cook has not issued a single sentence indicating that he doesn’t think killing skeptics is a good idea.* (Dana apparently says privately, We of course don’t agree with giving denialists the death penalty, which is good to hear, though Dana’s baseless namecalling is regrettable). And what of DeSmog? If a skeptic had called for the execution of climate scientists, would they have said nothing?
The University of Graz condemns the appalling threat
Ray S, Monckton, Richard Tol, and others wrote to the Dean at the Uni of Graz, and the Dean replies:
The University of Graz is shocked and appalled by the article and rejects its arguments entirely. The University places considerable importance on respecting all human rights and does not accept inhuman statements. Furthermore, the University of Graz points out clearly that a personal and individual opinion which is not related to scientific work cannot be tolerated on websites of the University.
Helmut Konrad
Dean, Faculty of Humanities and the Arts
Thanks to commenters mfo (for pointing out the exact Austrian law in question), and sean, andy and many others, for writing.
Monckton gets the threat withdrawn and a full apology
Subject: Death penalty for legitimate scientific dissent
.oOo.
Monckton of Brenchley to Parncutt
Dear Professor Parncutt, – The unhappy history of Austria under the Anschluss should surely lead one to consider the unwisdom of demanding death for those scientists and researchers who today legitimately dissent from the apocalypticist notion that our altering 1/3000 of the atmosphere by 2100 will lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.
May I ask you publicly to withdraw your dangerous and offensive demand? Otherwise, the law of Austria – designed precisely to avoid a repeat of the murderous, anti-scientific approach adopted by the National Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany, an approach that you now unspeakably revive – will have to be brought to bear, and you will be prosecuted for your hate-crime.
Since an image of your offending statement was cached before your University realized that you had committed a crime and ordered you to remove your poisonous demand from its website, the evidence against you is clear.
A complaint will go to the Austrian prosecuting authorities unless you are able to notify me within 14 days that you have extinguished your crime by withdrawing your call for the death penalty for the likes of me.
– Monckton of Brenchley
.oOo.
Parncutt to Monckton
Dear Sir, – Thank you for your message. In response to this and other emails i have completely rewritten my posting. I hope that you prefer the new version.
Yours sincerely,
– Richard Parncutt
.oOo.
Monckton to Parncutt
Dear Professor Parncutt, – I regret that your new posting does not withdraw but instead repeats your unspeakable suggestion of the death penalty for those with whom (on no discernible ground that would be recognized as scientific) you disagree on the question of the climate.
However, I gave you 14 days publicly to withdraw that suggestion, of which 10 days remain. After that, a report will go via Interpol and separately via the British Embassy in Wien to the Austrian prosecuting authorities, with a copy to the Rektorin of your University, to whose office I am copying this correspondence by way of early notice.
I am also having the question whether your murderous, anti-scientific hate-crime constitutes an offence under the law of Australia, your state of origin, and whether your hate-crime – as an incitement to terrorism – is an offence grave enough to merit trial by the International Criminal Court, to whose founding treaty both Austria and Australia are States Parties.
I have also asked for a review of the question whether your university and your Rektorin, in continuing – astonishingly – to host this criminal matter on the official website even after several people have drawn your hate-crime explicitly to the Rektorin’s attention in writing, may be acting as conspirators with you in this hate-crime. It will surely be in your interest, and in the interest of your university, to reconsider this matter.
– Monckton of Brenchley
.oOo.
Parncutt to Monckton
Dear Sir,
In response to your email I have now posted an unconditional apology at the address of the original text: http://www.uni-graz.at/~parncutt/climatechange.html
I hereby withdraw, in their entirety, both texts that were previously posted at the above address (dated 25 October 2012 and 25 December 2012 respectively). I apologize for, and deeply regret, any offence that my texts may have caused to you or anyone else.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Parncutt
.oOo.
Monckton to Parncutt
Dear Professor Parncutt, – Thank you very much for your unconditional apology and for your entire withdrawal of both versions of your posting. The matter is now closed.
– Monckton of Brenchley
==============================
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
*appreciative applause*
371
I see the ghost of Peter Gleick in his apology.
These people can never just say “sorry, I was wrong”, they always have to hedge their apologies around with self-justification.
Parncutt: “I have been a member of Amnesty International for at least 14 years, and I admire and support their consistent stance on this issue.” [Yeah, yeah, I’m really a good guy deep down]
Gleick’s version was to blame his criminal lapse on his lifelong sense of “moral outrage”.
Parncutt: “I wish to apologize publicly to all those who were offended by texts..”
Oh, is it our fault for being offended? Show us the list of rational people who wouldn’t be offended by such comments.
He wrote it to bask in the favour of his trendy bien-pensant friends, and he has withdrawn it because he was called out on it and threatened with legal action.
If he’s sorry, he’s only sorry that he didn’t get away with it. Ditto Gleick.
850
Maybe Amnesty International pointed out his hypocrisy and threatened expulsion.
242
One can hope. Perhaps he took legal advice and discovered Lord Monckton’s threat to initiate prosecution under Austrian law was not an empty threat at all. He (Parncutt) tried to equivocate but a little later unconditionally surrendered. Lord Monckton has published his full email exchange with the University of Graz in a comment on this page at WUWT.
Having read this chapter and verse extracted from the Austrian legislation, I can understand his new position…and apology. (I haven’t looked for the penal provisions but note it falls under Austrian Criminal codes, which means a jail sentence may be likely on conviction …)
170
A small but important step towards a rational world.
Well done to all those involved in bringing this to the attention of U Graz and Christopher Monckton.
The obvious key to this would most likely have been the embarrassment that the U Graz would have suffered if it went further.
The question then arises as to whether the same response would have resulted if this had occurred in an Australian University.
I suspect not; we still have along way to go.
KK 🙂
432
Queensland has the “Public Sector Ethics Act 1994” which a) applies to nominated institutions including University of Queensland and b) comes under the criminal code.
John Cook could be prosecuted if he said the same. In fact I would suggest he is in breach of the Act just be having a web site which is falsely named. Maybe someone such as Christopher Monckton or a legally qualified person reading this site should write a letter to the Vice-Chancellor of UQ.
30
I don’t like Monckton. He’s a sophist, not a scientist. He isn’t likeable by any civilised standard. I am offended by his suggestion that Parncutt’s nonsense might be actionable under Australian law.
I am for free speech, even if it offends me. Monckton/Parncutt- two peas from differing but equally offensive pods.
Just saying.
2146
Ironic that someone accusing another of sophistry declines to explain why they’re offended by someone’s actions.
If you feel someone’s statements are not sound, you’re welcome to rebut them; you know, free speech and all that.
851
DaveN- If you can make sense of that first sentence of yours I will happily respond. I wouldn’t “decline to explain” my position if I know what I am responding to.
Would it help if I suggested that Parncutt’s nonsense is only nonsense, and any law that sought to ban nonsense would be very hard on most politics and political comment. It would wipe out global warming alarmism, but be equally damning to both sides on something like the deficit/surplus discussion.
It’s a delicate thing, that free speech. A fragile flower, which we all give lip support, but find it harder to nurture when we disagree.
Thumbs down here please folx. I value the disapprobation of the narrow minded.
7102
Ironically Australia has sought to ban exactly this type of speech. My understanding is that speech which causes “offense” is now potentially a crime thanks to AG Roxon & Labor cohorts.
But be that as it may … any rational person, which clearly excludes you based on present comments, realises that inciting death of their opponents (who are not guilty of capital crimes) is unreasonable.
Do you care to argue against that point? Is inciting death acceptable in your view?
I am not going to put words in your mouth … I will let you utter the nonsense yourself as you are the expert.
Needless to say, had a sceptic proposed the same thesis about warmists it would have been in just about every paper in the western press. The double standard is flabbergasting… This also causes me offense, but I cannot even change that obvious bias at my taxpayer dollar funded ABC let alone the rest of the media. It’s just a shame that so many people are sucked in by the mindless media tripe.
770
Yes- thanx BD- clearly, I am an expert in suppression of free speech and my double standards know no bounds. Advise me though, any law which restrains Parncutt must be either evil or not evil. As a denialist who believes in free speech I just can’t work out which.
(And I revel in the term “denialist” even if that qualifies as a capital crime in some people’s criminalia, and disqualifies me as a “rational person” in a wider sphere.)
Ahh- free speech- a fragile flower indeed.
461
I don’t understand why you think a law would possess the property of being evil or not. A law is simply words on a page (virtual or physical). The question posed is a foolish one.
There are laws in various countries dealing with defamation or hate speech. Perhaps you are not familiar with them? Perhaps you think them unjust and an affront to free speech?
To say I, or Jo, or a group of sceptics are “denialists” is clearly irrational if you cannot clearly expound what it is we deny.
Oh I see I am now a “moron” as well (your post 4.7.1). Care to state on what basis you make this insult? Last time I checked a “moron” is someone of diminished mental capacity, well below the IQ of 100. I can assure you that the reverse is, in fact, the case. So this would appear to be a baseless insult solely for the purpose of agitating me.
I would ask the readership at this point to make their own assessment. Oh wait, perhaps they already did with the little green and red thumbs…
692
Yes BD- [snip insult] Your inability to work out what I support or do not support clearly flags your intellectual deficiency. Don’t let your rellies and friends lull you into a false sense of intellectual adequacy. They are only boosting your self esteem and it isn’t really in your best interests. When you apply for support your application will be successful.
You needn’t feel bad about it though, there are many people of limited intellect functioning well in our society, even some in academia. And they’ve all got little green or red thumbs. That’s the one good thing about global warming alarmism.
It isn’t good or bad, it just is.
173
And yet, despite your relatively towering intellect, you have failed to answer my question or even correctly interpret my post.
Perhaps I should repeat myself … do you defend people advocating the execution of ‘deniers’ as originally proposed by Dr Parncutt?
BTW you appear to be ignorant about the concept of what constitutes someone being a scientist. Here is a description for your edification:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist
291
Oh come on BD- which post have I misinterpreted?
As to your specific question- How hard is it to work out that I am in favour of free speech? If the global warming believers want your bowels extracted and burned before your eyes, and your testicles crushed with nutcrackers for the entertainment of your children, they should say so. Then you can watch out for them when they come for you.
040
Must be lovely living in a simplistic black and white world. Good to know you support all speech regardless of how inappropriate it may be … seems to me you were testing the moderators here in today’s ‘contributions.’ Perhaps you were testing their tolerance of your grossly unjustifiable remarks. That’s rhetorical by the way … the clue being the lack of a ?
271
Deniers (dehumanising) and telling A BIG LIE and often enough (like CAGW) seems to still work. We need to inoculate enough people in our culture from susceptibility.
32
Here is the exposure draft of the legislation I allude to above Gnome:
http://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/ConsolidationofCommonwealthanti-discriminationlaws/Human%20Rights%20and%20Anti-Discrimination%20Bill%202012%20-%20Exposure%20Draft%20.pdf
I draw your attention to the vebiage that says:
Methinks were that legislation in place it would be clear that under this “law” (quotes as it is not law yet, thankfully) Parncutt would have been on very thin ice. It goes without saying that a jury/judge of “correct-thinking” individuals would never find him guilty of this “crime” so perhaps he would have been safe anyway. After all, “denialists” don’t count do they?
362
So the level of the argument is brought down to comparing Christopher Monckton to the likes of Professor Parncutt, whatever he may be like, although I have formed my own opinion while reading these articles.
Monckton does a superb job of telling it the way it is and personally that’s how it should be.
832
The main reason I like Chris Monckton is because he annoys the crap out of the Warmers and gets them all wet and excited.
I’m not sure what a sophist is but is that anything like Anna Rose or her partner who is likewise probablydrawing a large stipend from funds provided by large obscure donors to left wing pressure groups with large juvie vote appeal?
Being entitled to an opinion I would venture to say that on balance I like Christopher better than Anna.And that is why I paid good money to go see the Monckton – Nova show when it came to Newcastle.
I like people who push back at liars trying to rip off our tax money.
Even if they are Viscounts.
KK 🙂
761
Yes KK- it’s just like Anna Toad and her well-fleshed husband. They know lots of words and would rather use those than stick to the facts.
Monckton is on the side of the angels, but dig into whatever he writes and there’s just too much nitpicking nonsense. Even his postal address above is pretentious nonsense.
It’s all OK, that’s the way he plays the game he’s in, but it isn’t up to Australian standards, and we shouldn’t be afraid to say so.
376
Agreed, gnome, but – if viewed as the light entertainment – Monckton points up a valuable difference between the sides.
RThe good guys have a sense of humour, and a bit of tolerance.
261
Gnome; your comment “but it isn’t up to Australian standards” is suggestive that Australia now operates with some sort of moral compass, the way it did in the sixties.
Are you kidding or what?
Australia, after a great start for almost 200 years, has now become an undereducated; violent, alcohol
ridden, underemployed and overtaxed country that has lost the plot.
As for any moral compass that disappeared 40 years ago.
Every man for himself.
KK
321
It isn’t a moral standard, KK, it’s just that we used to call out the bullshit when it got too heavy.
And though I was there, I can’t recall much of the sixties.
213
So you were actually there then.
17
Hi Gnome,
Well when you say “it’s just that we used to call out the bullshit when it got too heavy” I think we are talking about the same thing.
Back then everyone could recognise lies and call it as a lie.
Today, the kids aren’t real sure about anything because our world is media driven and they can’t sort fact from fiction.
So today if you call out a lie or poor behaviour, there will be a million misconstrued opinions on that comment.
This results in a stalemate like the one we have on CAGW.
The baddies are the winners.
I like alcohol in it’s many forms but: it has very rarely intruded into my personal life or work and been a problem.
For the past twenty years or so we have had kids going to school all tanked up and with the Australian
drinking scene being at least 4 nights a week, so that well to do publicans can send their kids to
private schools, we have far too many young and not so young going to work but being unable or
disabled. 10% fun and 90% work is good for you but the reverse just causes a downward spiral that
means individuals and the community will never reach their full potential and kids will reach old age
saying “If only I had Known”.
Businesses don’t prosper and education is wasted so all we have to put hope in now is BHP and RIO
because our small business structure and work ethic has got behind the rest of the world.
The old Australian work ethic and business morality is alive and well:
IN TURKEY. They are a relatively well balanced country and are up and running; while too many Australians get bogged down in the Left versus Right craziness that is a tool used by politicians to blindfold us while they “move Forward” to personal fulfillment.
Our politicians have been put there to “see the truth” and they either can’t see it because they are stupid or have better things to do like “help their mates” at our expense.
There has always been corruption, problem is now if the alarm is sounded, the media will cover it up.
Oh for a moral politician.
KK 🙂
180
Forgot to mention the new technical term invented by employers to describe this:
“we have far too many young and not so young going to work but being unable or disabled. ”
Apparently it is called “Presenteeism”.
Present but useless.
KK
60
Monckton has a classical education, and that includes formal logic. He deploys it exquisitely. All power to his elbow.
340
I too was at Newcastle. Be honest “KinkyKeith” did you go to hear about AGW or because Jo has great legs whereas Monkton’s are only so-so?
36
Hi Apox
Well I just wanted to support those pushing back against the “CAGW is useful” and “tax Till We Die” mentality of Government.
It was interesting to see a couple of young blokes sitting in the front row who looked like rabble-rousers sent there by ANNA.
Turned out they were from, I think, Alcan and were concerned about the effect of the carbon tax on their jobs.
Turns out they had good reason to be worried.
A good night.
KK 🙂
70
Austrian Law, not Australian.
70
gnome,
Will you be so kind as to point me to your public condemnation of Australian authorities for their persecution of Andrew Bolt. This would go a long way in raising your level of seriousness regarding your current offendedness. Thanks.
371
No, Andrew “the devil’s right-hand man” Bolt is clearly worthy of condemnation. Clearly you don’t understand how this lefty selective censorship works John. Bolt was guilty of saying what most people were thinking but is not politically correct to say out loud. His crime was to utter the words and bring down the wrath of the hand-wringing, bed-wetting, inner city correct-thinkers.
Get with the program mate…
442
I can’t remember when, but some time ago, and still, I criticised Jo here for supporting that egregious toad (perhaps a word I overuse) alan jones, and saying Andrew Bolt is in a totally diffent class.
Bolt is a thoughtful gentleman. Agree or disagree, but Bolt remains a gentleman, whose opinions are based on reason and expressed with courtesy. Look it up- the wayback machine shouldn’t lie.
jones, on the other hand… (up yours BD- jones is about in your class)
237
“Gnome “,
Obviously you specialize in ad hominims rather that science.
Maybe you support these sentiments from your ilk also…….
‘Execute’ Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: ‘At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers’ — ‘Shouldn’t we start punishing them now?’
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1096/Execute-Skeptics-Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers–Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now
And this……
Prof. Richard Parncutt: Death Penalty for Global Warming Deniers?
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/prof-richard-parncutt-death-penalty-for-global-warming-deniers/
And this, murdering children who don’t subscribe your your global warming cult……….
10:10 spin til it hurts
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/1010-spin-til-it-hurts/
Hanged children? What is stirring in these warmists’ minds?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hanged_children_what_is_stirring_in_these_warmists_minds/
222
Angers- old mate- you’ve got me in one. Ad hominem all the way. So what? There’s not a lot of science in the discussion anyway, so why should I be any different.
Numbers only make my head feel heavy and my keyboard fingers sluggish. I’ve long advocated eating the children before they get a chance to reproduce themselves and exacerbate all our problems.
BTW- did you introduce any science into this discussion or just…
425
Correction folx- that should be “said” rather than “saying” above.
Bolt isn’t bound by idealogy or ideology, and whether you agree or disagree with him, he makes his point with logic and commonsense.
jones (as I now recall opining back then) is a brainless populist idealogue not worth debating. He isn’t beneath contempt, but he isn’t dead yet. Time is on his side.
216
Instead of just saying maybe you should do some research. Australia does not have an unqualified right of free speech. Pancutt advocated (an important issue) the exemplary execution of identifiable people, including Monkton, as a deterrent. Consider this hypothetical example. A Islamic academic proposes the exemplary execution of leading Christian figures in Australia in order to deter the celebration of Christmas. That certainly would be a criminal offense in this country. Now tell me what was the difference in principle betweeen the theoretical Islamic academic and Pancutt? Our anti-terrorism legislation criminalises threats against the life of people for political purpose. Pancutt would have some defences against such a charge. However to claim that there is some right of free speech in this issue is more weasel words and intellectual cowardice in a shabby defence of a dangerous slippery slope rationale by Pancutt. Monkton should be applauded for his intellectual honesty in standing up for right of Australians to think and express a dissenting view against a hegemonic scientific theory without threat of repression. Think before you start just sayin.
480
It hurts me to agree with you Con., but you are right- we don’t have a right of free speech.
Wouldn’t it be nice though if we did? Puntcart could say what he liked, and so could you, and all the islamic lunatics and their critics and everyone else. Even Monckton!
Why do I feel I need to defend free speech on a dissenters’ site?
(you should try sometime to get me started on a right to privacy)
420
I do defend free speech. I have fought for it all my adult life. I will not defend the right to advocate exemplaty killing, paedophilia, racism, rape or any other attack on the rights of others, particulalry powerless and minority groups. And I won’t defend the right to make threats of killing against climate theory dissenters. Ok I will play the Holocaust card Gnome. I guess you would the defend the right of a fascist to advocate gas chambers for Jews and aboriginals in this country? Where is the line you draw Gnome? The right to advocate an intellectual position doesnt include the right to advocate the killing of opponents. If you want to defend eco fascism thats your business. But don’t dress it up as democracy. This is no small thing Gnome. Pancutt advocated the execution of Jo and David because of their intellectual position in a debate on climate change! As well as other identifiable dissenters.
141
I still am having difficulty understanding the Australian view on free speech. We have the KKK, neonazis, etc all of whom advocate removal of the “unpure” from the earth based on skin color, religious beliefs, etc. The only thing freedom of speech may not apply to is homosexuals, who cannot be called wrong or in any way treated as other than natural and perfect. Still, unless there is a verifiable death threat–there is a minister who goes to service men’s funerals and declares dead service men are God’s punishment for advocating homosexual lifestyles. What I gather is this would be horrifying to those in Australia. Am I right?
10
Gnome, you can’t choose your family, but you can choose your friends, so you have every right to have any opinion about Lord Monckton that you want, but to be correct Lord Monckton is a mathematician and not a scientist. His understanding of physics is clearly poor as he still accepts that there is such a thing as a “greenhouse gas” although both the term and the mechanics have no basis in the real world.
Surely your problem with Parncutt’s comments being actionable under Austrian law is really a problem with the law itself. Monckton is merely pointing out that Parncutt chooses to live in a society that has such a law and that he should be mindful that he has possibly breached it.
Monckton has never threatened or implied a threat of violence on anyone. Calling them two peas from a pod is trying to tar Monckton with the same foul brush that Parncutt has painted himself with.
443
Exactly correct Ts- I couldn’t give a stuff about Austrian law, but to have some pom say Australian law might care about what he writes on the other side of the world raises my ire, and to have morons like BD come in and ??? only gets me going even more.
They have found my soft spot!
527
gnome said:
So someone specifically speculating about another country’s laws really angers you, but someone calling for mass exterminations of unbelievers, not so much? Your perjorative use of pom is also noted. Of course that’s OK among the politically correct and won’t be subject to the new laws.
110
Gnome, at no stage in the correspondence shown above did Lord Monckton mention Australian law, so your objection about what “some pom say” about “Australian Law” is completely irrelevant and unsubstantiated for the matter at hand.
You agree that Parncutt’s original posting belongs in the dust bin of history, but you are trying to put Lord Monckton in the same bin for no actual reason other than you do not like him.
120
Monckton to Parncutt “I am also having the question whether your murderous, anti-scientific hate-crime constitutes an offence under the law of Australia”
30
Good point Truthseeker.
Chris Monckton is basically taking what the warmers say and poking holes in it from his limited background in science.
He is a show man but nevertheless makes telling points and after all the monkey business that the warmers pass off as science his efforts are quite acceptable by comparison.
I’m glad he’s has decided to work towards resolution of this CAGW scam.
KK
220
“Gnome” says “I don’t like Monckton”.
Wow !
I’m sure that he and most people don’t care much for global warming cultists either !
233
There is no “free” speech in Australia anymore sport, just ask Andrew Bolt, and if the the fanatics in Canberra have their way with proposed legislation it will be an offence to offend anybody, and they will be the ones who decide if it is offensive.
160
Onya gnome!
224
Now I’m in real trouble.
121
Bhwaahahahah! It gets better gnome, even i agree with a number of the points you have made on this thread. 🙂
013
Thats because you sympathise with Pancutt but haven’t got the ticker to mount an open and public defense of his eco fascism. The caravan has moved on. Keep barking.
110
No, actually i dont. Will await your apology for misrepresenting me. 🙂
What i actually commented to gnome was:
That does not mean i agree with all of his positions, on this or any other matter, but i also like the way he is trying engage in discussion and explore ideas and the implications of the topic rather than simply express outrage at the issue of the moment and abuse anyone not part of the herd.
06
Brooksey, Cat – Gnome lie down with fleas mate and they jump all over you. Now you get it?
101
Cat –
“No, actually i dont. Will await your apology for misrepresenting me”
O really. I must have missed the unequivical and forensic demolition of Parncutts fascist rationale from you. You are an intellectual coward. And no apology. Go away.
21
Gnome said,
Not at all, gnome; you just have new friends.
31
@Gnome
Free speech is a great good.
Calls to limit free speech by violent means, as Parncutt’s, usually do not fall under free speech (although they do under Austrian law).
Calls for the death penalty with a link to a list of the presumed guilty, as Parncutt’s, can easily be interpreted as incitement to violence. This would be an offense in many countries (but not in Austria).
Monckton’s threats of legal action were bluff.
I was offended by Parncutt’s call to limit free speech for thought crimes. His only offense, however, is that he abused university resources for this.
93
Usually do not? Who decides and how is it decided?
Again, who decides its an offense and how is it decided?
If the answer is that society decides, what happens when a majority of people decide that witches cause bad weather and they should be burned at the stake?
What if a majority decide that there should be no debate or discussion about how black a white skinned black person is and those who try to debate it are hauled in front of a judge?
The thing about true free speech is that it is the ultimate security against influential extremist minority groups as well as against extremist majority groups.
In the end, if one can not speak ones mind, one can not defend ones self in a peaceful way. i.e. restricting free speech leads to violence, not the other way around.
91
It is an offence in Austrian Law, a Criminal Offence. They fall under Austria’s Hate Crime law, which is part of Austria’s Criminal Code. (I linked to an English extract of the Austrian law in a posting above so you can see for yourself what the Austrian Law entails.)
No they weren’t. Viscount Monckton knows of what he spoke. If Parncutt had not surrendered, Monckton would have acted on his promise. Don’t forget, he was an advisor to Margaret Thatcher, and her Cabinet. From 1974 on, he was at or near the centre of political power in England, before and during Thatcher’s “reign.” He knows how “the system” works and what to do to make it work. I don’t believe he was bluffing in the slightest.
European Hate Crimes Laws: laws have been enacted in:
European Union, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Scotland,
Canada:
Hate Speech Laws are part of Canada’s Criminal Code
USA Hate Crimes legislation:
The Civil Rights Act (1871)
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994)
Hate Crimes Prevention Act (2008)
The USA does not have total freedom of speech. It has acted to prevent certain odious forms of threatening speech, too.
You can thank Hitler, Goering and Himmler and their buddies for these laws. Nobody wants to enable travel down that path ever again.
70
Ha, ha, gnome, convict roots from the old country? Get over it.
I’m pretty sure not too many of we adoring fans of the noble Lord are that interested in his pedigree but rather in his extremely sharp mind and turn of phrase. We saw that confirmed when in July 2011 he demolished at least one professional alarmist here on Aussie TV who was foolish enough to take him on.
One measure of an anthropogenic climate change skeptic’s stature is the aim of the alarmist’s artillery. Their concentration on Monckton is a pretty good indicator of just how effective he is in damaging their incredible cause.
133
No convict roots here lJ- Just postwar immigrant insecurity.
I don’t disagree with you generally about Monckton, I just think his arguments too often degenerate into meaningless drivel about grammar and trivia. I wish that sort of argument would attract the derision it deserves, whichever side of the discussion it supports.
What’s the use of an elegant turn of phrase if the target is an idiot’s grammatical error? Argue the facts if there are any to argue, or otherwise just ridicule the ridiculous.
211
Well I guess one reason he doesn’t get pulled up by his opponents for giving their flawed arguments a Latin title is because the sort of pisswits that inhabit the alarmist universe are not sure whether he’s speaking Greek or Double Dutch. That seems to me to be a unique, Monckton, identifier of the intellectually challenged and well worth at least a skeptical grin if not a guffaw.
100
Free Speech will always break down if a significant group has a vision that is the ultimate truth AND that vision can only be fulfilled by subordination or elimination of others.
“Skeptical Science” blog has the belief in that only its views are true, and any skeptics are false. According to Sks, skeptics are either maliciously lying or too stupid to realize the truth that we are facing a climate apocalypse unless we abandon cars and coal-fired power stations. It is only a short step from this dogma to Parncutt’s views.
101
Jo,
The link above to the apology doesn’t work (at this address: http://www.uni-graz.at/~parncutt/climatechange.html&lang=en) – comes up with below.
“Error 404: Object not found!
The requested URL was not found on this server. The link on the referring page seems to be wrong or outdated. Please inform the author of that page about the error.
If you think this is a server error, please contact the webmaster.
http://www.uni-graz.at
Apache
UNI NEWS SITEMAP UNI SEARCH UNI GRAZ © WEBTEAM / 30.05.2006″
Cheers,
70
.
Popeye,
The apology is http://www.uni-graz.at/~parncutt/climatechange.html
——-
Thanks. Added in to the top.
Jo
60
I just looked at Parcutt’s Uni site as he linked back to Monckton of Brenchley:
In response to your email I have now posted an unconditional apology at the address of the original text: http://www.uni-graz.at/~parncutt/climatechange.html
There is nothing there.
Is he playing games?
110
exactly. His contrition was short-lived.
Perhaps Gnome would like to defend him?
KK
120
OK KK- I disagree with what he says but I will defend to the death his right to say it.
(Or in my own terms- he is a pathetic excuse for a human being, but if I don’t defend his right to free speech, whose will I defend? How do I choose?)
512
but he very much chose the wrong place to say it. !!
I would wish no harm to even the most rabid CAGW bletheren, but the thought of transferring the whole lot to a deserted island with no external communication, where they could do no more harm, does have its merits 😉
And with that lot, wouldn’t it be such a pleasant place to live… NOT !!
40
Yes Andy
” he very much chose the wrong place to say it. !!”
If he had said it in Australia there would hardly have been a ripple; and that’s not because we are
more tolerant but because it is passe to abuse and rubbish others with impunity in Oz; especially when
you have a “PhD” as Evidence for your POV.
KK
KK
10
What i meant, KK, was publishing on a university web site.
Just stupidity. It has nothing to do with his specific university subject.
Brings the Uni into disrepute.
The comment, if he really wanted to make it, belongs on somewhere like SkS, or other neo-cagw climate porn site.
50
And in the context of climate science his PhD is totally meaningless.
It has no scientific validity what-so-ever. Or any political validity.
I actually wonder what relevance his PhD has to anything !!!
40
Gnome said:
How commendable. But how about you defend Monckton’s right to criticize Parncutt’s gross ideas, instead of going out of your way to condemn the critic with name calling and silly nitpicking? Wouldn’t that make more sense here – except to John Brookes and Catamon?
I read somewhere the advice somewhere – perhaps from some ancient Chinese philosopher – if you find you are digging yourself into a hole, stop digging!
10
One can do both–defend the right of both to say what they will. It’s not either/or.
00
Sheri
I agree with the Philosophical point of view that free speech should be unfettered.
Unfortunately it will not work out in the real world for very practical reasons, none of which involve trying to crush or stifle dissent.
America exhibits it’s “rights to” in rather tragic forms; such as, the right to bear arms.
Now we all know that the intention there was to protect citizens from rampaging government, it was never intended to endorse the murder of school children and their teachers.
The right of free speech has very close analogies to the right to bear arms.
Both need supervision to protect the community because individual human beings can be fallible.
KK
ps. It’s a bit patronizing to say that Australians would have trouble in America ? because we can’t handle free speech? ??
00
Reply @ Sheri
Sheri,
Please show me where my comment necessitated or even implied mutual exclusion. In analogical speak, I was pointing out that it’s generally less weird to be more interested in the elephant in the room, than fixated on the serviette on the floor. Do you have a problem with that? Does your politics?
Priorities, OK?
By the way, gnome’s contentious comment wasn’t defending of Monckton – quite the opposite. Next time read and think more carefully, please.
00
The term “instead of” means to do in place of or without doing the other option.
I have no idea what the rest of your comment means. I made no reference to who said what about whom. I did read and think and did not add any extraneous data or opinions to my comment. I was addressing your use of a term that is generally accepted as exclusive (Having cake instead of pie means you only eat one), nothing more.
00
Sheri said:
As does, ‘mutually exclusive’. Thank you for the kindergarten, Sheri.
That doesn’t surprise me.
00
It’s there. The link on Jo’s page has a line break in it
Try this
http://www.uni-graz.at/~parncutt/climatechange.html
50
It is alarming and appalling that those on the AGW side fo the debate have been silent on this. It should have been someone from the CAGW persuasion who was outraged, stood up and put Parncutt in his place. Shame!
As I have said it calls into question their humanity.
331
Grant,
Perhaps it’s alarming but it should not be surprising.
Those on the CAGW side fall into one of two distinct categories.
1. They are a beneficiary of the CAGW industry.
2. They are the brainwashed useful idiots of the CAGW industry.
The first category of people are obviously too morally bankrupt and have too much entrenched hatred of skeptics to voice any opposition to a fellow “team member”, even as in this case, death threats are involved.
The second category of people are too stupid and wimpish to do anything other than nod their head and drool.
381
“As I have said, it calls into question their humanity,and the role that Mr Abbott has played in all this”
Thanks for setting that up for me Grant,because labour will surely find a way to blame Tony for Parncutts comments.
190
“As I have said it calls into question their humanity”. It also points the the extent where Noble (Nobel?) Cause corruption has affected some activists morals and ethics.
120
Oh come on Grant- they’ll say- “he’s a pathetic little loser who had to travel to nowheresville to get a job after years of trying- whose side is he on?”
GrazU is embarassed, global warming alarmism is embarassed, even puntcart himself is embarassed. Who would own him?
(Even I am embarassed, I am not sure about how to spell “embarassed”, Boy do I expect some flak if it’s wrong.)
313
Its odd how we sometime look at a word and wonder if its spelt correctly.
With my eyes, I often cut to MS word before I post, see what it thinks of the spelling..
probably ought to do it every post….. but hey, its a blog, let people interpret my typos ! 🙂
And yes, I suspect that GrazU is very embarrassed.
Those sort of comment from Parncutt DO NOT belong on a University web site, they belong on somewhere like Sks or Desmog… that is where I would expect to find them.
20
Great work folks!
What an excellent outcome to set us up for another cool year.
They’ll be saying it was just a joke next
140
I sincerely hope that the upper academic echelons of the University of Graz go through the usual bit of tut-tutting, but keep him on.
Dismissal could mean that the poor pathetic sod lobs back in Australia. Almost certainly in the UWA Psychology department soaking up yet another useless ARC grant.
330
In case there are readers who are puzzled by my several posts at WUWT, I have just posted a simple explanation there, thus:
In the first WUWT blog I argued several times that a call to arms and rapid execution might not be the best course. It closes off exploration of what made the man speak this way.
I was moderately criticised for being soft. I’m not soft, but there are more subtle ways to get inside the mind of the person and having done so, to learn to your advantage.
I would be fascinated to know which concepts formed his “tipping point”. But others now seem to have closed off that avenue, not the least his present University.
To conclude my earlier analogy, perhaps the nurse had dyslexia when she repeated that “He will feel better after we prick his boil.” Surgical procedures typically take planning, time and skill, not hand grenades.
……………………….
Simply put, when we encounter a person we think might be intelligent but mislead, there is value in finding out what did the misleading. It provides a focus for correcting information.
Those who know me need not worry that I have seen a reversing light.
My resolve is stronger after seeing the horrible treatment that the ABC gave Jo and David.
260
Hi Geoff.
Possibly his main focus was on getting well paid work in an “intellectual” pursuit of his choosing.
Being “CAGW Positive” is a sure vote winner for acceptance at the UWA Psych Dept and being part of the group luv in.
Warm fuzzies, lots of trips and good money.
Max income via path of least resistance leads to personal gratification.
KK
200
.
KK,
I think Parncutt being “CAGW Positive” maybe wrong – I think he has full blown Gaia from which there is no cure.
201
Hi Dave,
That’s serious.
I know there is vaccine for “CAGW Positive” but don’t think the Gaia one ready yet.
He’s done for.
KK 🙂
110
“he will feel better after we prick his boil.”
I think the nurse got her wording the wrong way round! At least I hope she did.
130
I agree, Geoff
A lunge for funding through notoriety is likely at the bottom of it. Be nice to find out, but we won’t now
100
Geoff, have you written to Parncutt yourself? Several people have CC’d me on his replies, and I’ve been surprised by his responses. He is genuinely trying to answer questions. He must have been very very busy this week, and I suspect this has all come as a bit of a surprise to him too.
130
It is relieving to learn that while Parncutt wants the quick decisive and brutal death of all true skeptical scientists he does not have the backing of his own university.
How embarrassing for him!
210
I got 45 thumbs down and you only got 10 thumbs up for this (at about 9.15 PM) It almost makes me ashamed to be a denier.
114
I feel sympathetic with what you say on many levels, but it has become incumbent upon us to see that they are held to SOME standards too, gnome.
Fortunately some countries in the non-English speaking world haven’t sold out their values like ours have. I don’t agree with limiting free speech. But using our employers’ resources to impugn the institution and possibly violate the law can not be tolerated either. As to the potential criminality, the laws of Austria and Germany are not my own, but I also understand the context which they were created. That I question the approach, but can offer no better alternative at the moment, does not mean that I believe that people foreign to those lands should be setting them up as platforms to promote mass murder and intimidation of the global ‘influential sceptics’ and high ranking Catholic clergy just because they come from countries where a more rational debate (until recently, at least) was outside the purview of the law.
Don’t forget, he was also arguing that murder was an answer to free speech. We’ve seen the goal posts moved several times now in the free countries. Intimidation and threats towards sceptics, violent behaviour (threats, rioting, vandalism) to prevent rational discussion that the teachers’ unions and their bought and paid for student group/gang thugs don’t wish happening is a common occurrence in Canada. They materialize to act threatening, or call in the threats, and the Unies cancel for ‘security reasons’ – it has become the new norm.
Parncutt took the job and in doing so made commitments to his employers, the society and its laws. It isn’t a law I’d feel comfortable living under personally, but if it bites his as- anterior region, so be it. At least in Austria they are free enough that their University’s condemn those who would silence free speech with violence.
If freedom were a contest between nations I would be hard pressed to gloat about the english speaking descendant Magna Carta countries and what, in this last couple generations, we have done to ourselves.
(Curious as to other readers’ observations regarding public sector workers – especially teachers and postal workers, ABC/BBC/CBC and how they coordinate their extra curricular activities and work them into professional lives. Would love some help tracking down the threads if this has been gone over too many times here for anyone to want to recount. Thanks)
100
Jeepers – that’s “universities” autocorrect seems to take me for a previously in the possessive kind of guy when it comes to universities now
10
Why is it the the people who shout the loudest for tolerance are the most intolerant????
Bravo Lord Monckton of Brenchley, keep up the good work.
222
Watch this space to see if he lasts at U.Graz much longer. No doubt UWA would be slithering all over themselves to get such potential grant sucking to their ‘university’. Oh, I do so look forward to a conservative government in Oz again and hopefully the strangulation of the rent-seekers’ ill-gotten life blood of grants.
301
You have to remember there quite a few idiots in the Liberal Party who are CAGW positive.
71
A few of the dripping Wets have already been eased out, Judi Moylan being one. If they gain a big enough majority I can’t see Turnbull wielding much influence post-election.
60
I wrote to Hockey on the Lib attitude to expensive policies that are supposed to counter AGW. His response was a pathetic, thoughtless, fence-sitting “it’s insurance” attitude. These guys are so into political crap; with no science background they don’t take the time to study the matter nor follow Jo or WUWT. If Prof. Ian Plimer, said to be an “advisor” to Abbott, cannot shake some common sense into them what hope do we have?
70
You wrote to Hockey, about policy?? Seriously??
Expecting and answer from him that in any way makes sense and actually has anything to do with actual policy is a triumph of expectation over observation.
06
I do yield some space for Professor Parncutt folks he is right Climate Change will affect millions if not billions of people over the globe.
What he doesn’t understand is that us sceptics do not deny that the climate is changing.
What he doesn’t understand is that the science is not settled and that there is sufficient evidence to denounce the alarmist forecasts.
What he doesn’t understand is that us sceptics believe we are dealing with this problem the wrong way.
Throwing money at Governments and NGO’s to reduce the effects of Carbon Pollution is fraud and will cause the deaths of virtually millions of people but will he be tried and sentenced under his own rules ?
He needs to back up his statements with proof.
And what he needs to do now is provide his evidence that it is being caused by the sceptics of this planet and that he is also guilt free from it’s affects.
I bet he can’t find any of the above and on that point, Gnome I agree. He does spout nonsense !
200
Bob Massey,
What Parncutt failed to do in both of his articles was provide one iota of evidence that global warming could be responsible for the “hundreds of millions” of future human deaths he claims. He did not provide one iota of evidence that there is any such dangerous warming, nor that humans are causing it, nor that sceptics are disabling efforts to curtail it.
What he does provide is evidence of his own gross misunderstanding of statistics.
According to him if scientists are 90% certain that x many people will die because of cause y, then that means that certainly x/10 people will die from cause y… This would cause him to fail any university undergraduate course in statistics.
So Parncutt thinks (or thought) it appropriate to pre-emptively prosecute and execute (kill) a considerable number of scientists skeptical of the CAGW dogma based on a crime that has not been committed and might never be committed.
There is no greater and more permanent tragedy then killing someone for the wrong reason or no reason at all, yet this is exactly what Parncutt is (was) proposing with a 10% probability.
I don’t care whether he has recanted on his death threat. The man is a dangerous, disgusting idiot!
281
It gets worse Sonny. If “scientists are 90% certain”, who are we talking about?
110
We all know not to trust percentages don’t we. Impressive sounding figures with no meaning until you delve into what exactly the percentàge is of.
As in eg the 98% of almost Nothing At All
10
“What he doesn’t understand is that us sceptics do not deny that the climate is changing.”
Really? in what way is it changing ??
From what I can see, temps have always gone up and down, it would be very unusual if they didn’t.
All seems pretty normal to me. (Nice summer day this morning caught himself a few waves 🙂 , bit of a rainstorm this arvo, a bit windy now)
Pretty normal, nothing untoward happening.
.
.
.
Question for y’all to ask yourselves, and try to be honest……. if there wasn’t a big hoo-haw going on about climate changing, would any of you have even noticed any difference ?????
150
Yes.
018
.
A bit here and a lot THERE
Suppose your solution is a Parncutt one.
70
And the state of storage in Lake Argyle is relevant to my reply to AngryG55 how??
Well, to try and reply in context, no, i dont believe skeptics should be denied water. Maybe chocolate, but not water. 🙂
17
AndyG55 as you state in you’re post
The Climate is changing cyclically and maybe I should have said that but I didn’t. The fact is the climate does and is changing because it’s a dynamic system.
100
unpredictably cyclical.. it is behaving exactly as it has throughout history.
nothing untoward has, or is, happening.
The AGW crap is all just one monumental beat-up..
71
Absolutely right on the nail, Andy. I don’t know where you reside, but here in the UK I’d certainly say nothing’s changed much – and I’ve lived here for over 60 years. Dry summers, wet summers, the occasional cold winter – I agree absolutely, were it not for all the nonsense about fraction of a degree temperature changes, no one would notice.
I don’t think Tuvalu’s disappeared beneath the waves yet either.
30
Worth noting that the Good Prof has given a politician’s version of an apology – he apologizes for, and regrets, any offence caused. By my reading he has not apologized for for what he said…
180
Yep, you should definitely only apologise for the any offence caused. It is entirely your right to express an opinion. If you find it has caused offence, you can apologise for this.
But Dr Parncutt wrote an article where he suggested that certain actions be deemed criminal, and punishable by death. Its a silly idea, but you can suggest it. I’m pretty sure that shock jocks regularly wish for the return of the death penalty for a variety of crimes. And I don’t want the parrot to apologise, no matter what vile rubbish spews from his mouth.
Just in case someone misunderstands me, I don’t support the death penalty for anything, and I don’t support making the voicing of your opinions on climate change into a crime.
And Monckton is an annoying bully (go on, feel free to say nasty things about me now…).
235
I believe in free speech, but not the incitement to do harm to anyone.
(If skeptics post any equivalent threats to Parncutts they will be SNIP’d).
For what it’s worth, Parncutt did make a decent apology and deserves credit for that. He admitted fault: ” I made claims that were incorrect and comparisons that were completely inappropriate, which I deeply regret.”
230
And John gets the 2012 award for stating the blindingly fracking obvious in less than 10 words!!
118
Poor Catman, it must be difficult for you when you have someone like Monckton, who obviously has a massive command of the English language, and is willing to use it…
while you, Catman, have basically none.
I’m not surprise you and JB, and ALL the CAGW illiterates feel like you are being bullied… poor little boys.
141
Actually AngryG55, i’m more impressed by content rather than delivery. Which is why i find Monkton and his loyal fanbois so impressively humorous.
Ok, continue to next lame insult.
013
But you would need to understand it first, Cat.
That leaves you well out of the loop !!
101
And I’ve read one or two of your posts, you are hardly one to criticise ANYONE for lack of content. !
I find it hilarious that you think Lord Monckton is a bully..
Does he really intimidate you THAT much !!!!!
You poor insignificant git !!
181
So Pancutt is “silly” and Monckton who he advocates being executed for challenging the hegemony in climate alarmism is a “bully”. Do you actually believe you have any credibility?
41
Brooksie, I think that you have effectively disqualified yourself from any opinion of Pancutt … you and he share some of the same extremist thought attributes. I don’t recall you having made an apology or withdrawing your dreadful opinion.
20
No JB , Monckton has been slighted, but unlike most of us perhaps, knows how to stand up for himself, within the Law. He knows his way around the Law, and will use it, but only here for bringing cowardly bullies back into line.
To think Prof Parncutt could get away with publishing such despicable suggestions, by hiding behind his cloak of Academic superiority. Such cowardice. Now watch him recant as Monckton , a Knight of Malta, tears off his cloak. It remains to be seen if the Academic authorities have the fortitude to do the same.
20
Monkton was named in the list on the DeSmog blog, to be executed.
It is his right to be upset and seek atonement. Prof Parncutt is lucky that he’s smart enough to realise just what he’s done.
10
Jonova writes:
“Meanwhile, John Cook seemingly endorses the original shocking threat that skeptics should recant or die. Surely not? His ad hominem ambush site (misleadingly called “SkepticalScience“) was referred to as “evidence” by Parncutt. (See also Debunking un-SkepticalScience). Five posts have gone up since Christmas, WUWT has heard from Dana (of Cook’s site), yet neither Dana nor Cook has even issued a single sentence indicating that he doesn’t think killing skeptics is a good idea.”
The fact that Parncutt referred to Skeptical Science on matters of fact no more implies SkS’s endorsement of his moral views than does Anders Breivik’s reliance on Monckton and McIntyre as “experts” on climate change imply that either McIntyre or Monckton approved his mass murder. The suggestion that simply being cited by a person with offensive opinions implies that you agree with those offensive opinions is simply outrageous. But without that suggestion, there is no reason why Cook or anybody else should take note of the bizarre opinions of an obscure musicologist in Austria. Interpreting the hyperventilated rantings of both Parncutt and Watts in no way implies the endorsement by Cook or anybody else of either.
What is worse, however, is that Dana has, in fact, commented on the issue in an email to Watts, saying:
“We of course don’t agree with giving denialists the death penalty, but we’re also not going to waste our time commenting on what some German musicologist said just because he happens to (correctly) cite SkS as a factually accurate source on climate science.
Given than you frequently allow WUWT guest posts from people like Christopher Monckton, who aside from being a total nutjob (to put it as kindly as I can), says some pretty horrible things on a regular basis, I really don’t think you’re in a position to expect more than that.
-Dana”
(My emphasis)
Watts chose not to reveal to his readers that Dana had in fact repudiated Parncutt’s opinion, but stated correctly that the citation of SkS by Parncutt did not imply SkS’s endorsement of his opinion, and therefore required no response. That Watts chose to present the contents of that email to the world as, in your words, “neither Dana nor Cook has even issued a single sentence indicating that he doesn’t think killing skeptics is a good idea” merely shows his complete lack of integrity.
He has indulged himself in a hypocritical campaign to tarnish SkS on principles he absolutely repudiates when applied to pseudo-skeptics; and deliberately withheld relevant information to inflame the fake outrage. That you have followed him down that path without the slightest attempt at fact checking is merely par for the course.
————————————————–
Tom, thanks for telling me the information I could not have known (unless Dana had taken the extra ten seconds to email me). I did fact-check. I looked at SkepticalScience. If Dana and John Cook wouldn’t refute it publicly (or at least in a broadcast email), how would anyone else know? I’ve updated the post immediately. Your baseless ad hom about Monckton is an unfortunate detractor. And equating Parncutts hyperventilating to Watts calm post shows unfortunately, that you don’t get it, not remotely. One man suggested I should face execution, the other describes the fallout. This is a moment John Cook could score an easy point. It would have cost him next to nothing to say that Sks “regrets unreservedly that anyone would call for the deaths of scientists”. That would show he had principles. If Cook does not endorse that kind of threat, then a mere one line statement to that effect would be easy to make, right? – Jo
819
I find it hard to believe that Watts would given an incomplete quote to create a false impression. That is so unlike him.
422
I find it hard to believe that every pro CAGW article I’ve read uses an incomplete (or doctored) set of data to create a false impression.
Maybe Watt has learned a few things from those milking mother Gaia’s CAGW tit?
Just sayin’
164
it is funny… when death threats are made against climate scientists sites like this spend more time arguing whether threats were made than condemning and distancing from said threats.
35
‘Denialists’?
The use of this word by one of its writers (Dana) is the giveaway as to what ‘Skeptical Science’ is all about – their approach activist rather than scientific, so much so that I find myself seriously doubting whether any of its scribes have ever worked in a research scientific environment. They’re incapable of reasonable discussion, snipping points that they don’t wish to discuss, and using non-scientific terminology such as ‘gish gallop’, ‘straw man’ ‘denier’ ‘cherry picking’ ‘debunking’ and so forth in a puerile attempt to belittle visitors to their website. This sort of nonsense does not belong in the world of science, never features in any scientific publication, and isn’t heard at meetings. It would lend more credibility to their website if they adopted a genuinely scientific style. People who work in science have respect for each other’s opinions even if disagreeing because they all know how much work is involved, and treat each other with courtesy. Unfortunately those behind ‘Skeptical Science’ as self-styled experts in their missionary zeal to save the planet from ‘deniers’ don’t appear to realise this.
20
Actually this all blew up at WUWT either Christmas day or the day before.
The Uni of Graz were inundated with outrage, and things have happened. Whether or not Monkton directly led to the apology is a bit debatable. Perhaps more likely it was simply a weight of general outrage that led to the retraction of the essay.
210
I suspect you are right. I think its funny though. AGW proponent loony gets outraged demands from AGW skeptic loony. 🙂
Will be interesting to see how much credit daH Monkers takes for it and whether he tries to use it in his presentations? However, he has said:
I suspect this still has a way to run on the skeptic blogoshpere since its just tooooo juicy as an outrage driver.
518
Global warming was closed 16 years ago but I guess it was just too juicy a grant driver, tax driver, carbon credit driver.
Catamon imagine if a skeptic made a death threat as significant as Parncrutt. It would he all over the ABC for weeks
221
Make no mistake It was Monckton’s intervention and persistence that elicited the total climb down, after spelling out in no uncertain terms the consequences, that had sphincters trembling.
As Watts , who’s site was closest to the action acknowledges , Monckton was instrumental in bringing the Professor of Musicology into line..
11
ANOTHER JOB FOR MONCKTON
http://theconversation.edu.au/the-real-debate-on-climate-is-happening-in-san-francisco-11209
“Among the 20,000 geophysicists and scientists from other disciplines in attendance at the AGU meeting, there is no mention of the denialist troupe of cranks who do “science” by writing letters to the editor.
With one exception.
Dr. Jim Hansen, one of the world’s foremost climate scientists, who first alerted the world to the risks from climate change decades ago, gave a presentation on Tuesday night. A patrician figure, he was greeted with a standing ovation even though the message he had to deliver, based on the latest available science, was far from encouraging. Decades ago, Dr. Hansen predicted events such as Hurricane Sandy, and he has been warning about the implications of climate change ever since.
Dr. Hansen expressed the view that the professional dis-informers who facilitate and encourage climate denial, and who obstruct and delay a solution to the problem at great cost in dollars and human lives in support of their own short-term greed or ideological agenda, ought to be tried for crimes against humanity.”
630
All bluster and no proof.
Please provide evidence that hurricane sandy is caused by CO2.
Please provide evidence of ONE SINGLE HUMAN LIFE that has been threatened or extinguished by legitimate questioning of scientific methods, results and conclusions.
332
Some 50 people died in hurricane Sandy.
Some 500 people have died in RECORD COLD CONDITIONS in Russia and Ukraine in the past week.
Look it up. GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND.
Should we be charged with crimes against humanity for these COLD deaths as well as the WINDY deaths of hurricane Sandy?
How does this relate back to GLOBAL WARMING?
352
‘Google is your friend.’
Sonny, I’ve had a number of useful fools (almost every single one, for some reason, an atheist), tell me, in response to that exact phrase, that google is useful for ‘finding porn.’ Of course you understand what they were suggesting that I do with it.
People like that- and catamon, and brooksie, and gnome- aren’t worth the paper they [snip] themselves with.
122
Damn- that’s a sad snip. I would love to know what it is that I ??? myself with paper.
Perhaps as an atheist I even ?? doubly?
Come on Otter- sneak it through with euphemisms. Leave catamon and brooksie out of it if you must. As a believer in free speech I can take it. There might be other atheists here too, who would like to know.
(Though the term “drivelling idiot” does spring to mind)
115
Oi! Listen short and cement based one, i want to play too!!
09
Do you know who else in history has been “greeted with a standing ovation”?
ADOLF HITLER.
312
I was thinking the same thing … one would not have found many Jewish amongst that crowd; likewise to hear Jim “the fraud” Hansen.
191
They are all frauds.
16 years now without a warming signal. Yet rather than acknowledge that maybe global warming isn’t all it’s cracked up to be they would rather kill us or throw us into prison.
That’s Neo-Environmentalism for you! LOL
282
In the Cold War, which is never covered in school history but never-the-less happened, Kremlinologists would measure the status of USSR Communist Party leaders by the length of the standing ovation given to them. As activists get most of their political inspiration from Marxism, would we not do better by making our comparisons more pertinent?
222
Sonny – Congratulations on being the first on this thread to invoke Godwin’s law with a gratuitous mention of Hitler/Nazis.
I tend to agree.
35
um I went to a Bon Jovi gig in about 1990?
HItler – standing ovation
Bon Jovi – standing ovation
=> Bon Jovi = Hitler??????
21
Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: ‘Blaming Hurricane Sandy on Global Warming or ‘Climate Change’ is shockingly ignorant or shockingly deceptive
http://www.patriotpost.us/opinion/15298
180
Short version: “Joe Bastardi is shockingly ignorant”
333
The mods would have a field day with my response to ugliness which is you. So I kept it to that one word.
111
Nostradamus is said to have made many accurate predictions. Should we jail those who disagree with Nostradamus? He may not be a scientist, but if he made accurate predictions centuries ago, it would seem that not listening to him is to cause the deaths of millions. So can we prosecute those who will not listen to the seer Nostradamus?
(Please cite where Hansen specifically predicted Hurricane/Tropical Storm Sandy would hit New York when a president that loves disasters was in office and had a new media that would eat up the disaster, milking it for weeks. Also, please cite where Hansen predicted the date and time of the storm, the P coefficient of that value, etc. We need FACTS here. Any psychic worth their salt can vaguely predict disaster at some uncertain point in the future. No science there.)
80
“Decades ago, Dr. Hansen predicted events such as Hurricane Sandy..”
Um, he predicted a large storm would turn and drift in a northwest direction rather than the usual northeast direction? That’s an astonishing prediction, he was way out on a limb with that one. To think he earns a seven figure salary making predictions like that, no wonder he got a standing ovation. I’d stand and clap for him too.
20
Making light of crimes against humanity ought to be punishable by being tarred and feathered, but it isn’t so let’s get over it and just deal with what is, as Monckton has done.
10
Off topic but a fun read … the SMH ran a story of celebrity bad science today:
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/celebrity-bad-science-dried-placenta-pills-and-oxygen-shots-20121228-2bylc.html
I had high hopes, but alas, no mentions of Al Gore or our own Carbon Cate.
100
Gnome
You may recall the angst, shock and horror when this was going the rounds in May 2012
”
Australia’s leading climate change scientists are being targeted by a vicious, unrelenting email campaign that has resulted in police investigations of death threats…
Australia’s new chief scientist, former ANU vice-chancellor Professor Ian Chubb has condemned these email threats as ‘’an outrageous attack’’ on open and public debate…
Federal Climate Change Minster Greg Combet said harassment of scientists or other researchers was unacceptable….”
Note very carefully what Greg Combet had to say. How do you reconcile dissemination of this by the MSM but indicate that it is OK for Professor Parncutt to call for tyhe execution of climate sceptics? Double standards seems an apt phrase.
250
A letter to the Chief Scientist on how science works
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_letter_to_the_chief_scientist_on_how_science_works/
60
So somehow, because I believe in free speech, I am guilty of a double standard?
[snip – clearly you don’t believe that, and you can’t post that kind of threat here anyway – I believe incitement to commit a crime is illegal in Australia. — Jo]
Perhaps we should have a Department of Truth, and only true things could be published. Who could possibly disagree with that?
610
I applaud your stance and the courage shown in taking it. Hat tip.
42
gnome, note at the top of the page.
Then consider the comments on this thread. 🙂
221
Catamon, I find it hard to imagine that I agree with you on anything, and while this post (20.2.2) is short on details, I’ll have to say that this thread is plenty of evidence that humans have not become more civil than any other time (including cave men).
All the more reason to be free with free speech but one must also commit to being constantly wary of the next riot, burning, lynching and murder. I’m reasonably sure that the US Founding Fathers made the first amendment and second amendment in exactly that order and for the reason I mention above.
Take away the razor and perfume, we all rapidly turn back to animals……
00
Hi Gnome,
I accept that you have a deep seated belief in unconditional freedom of speech. I share to a lesser level your belief, people can say whatever hurtful thing they want, but it must be true, and it must not advocate violence. (but who am I to be arbiter and in the same vein, who are you… an even scarier thought do we want one….)
However in the world we live in free speech comes with responsibilities and unfortunately some individuals are not responsible enough to be able to wield it. (dont go into censorship and who choses what can be said by whom, another whole matter).
Remember there are over 6 billion of us on this planet all with varying degrees of susceptibility (or personal crazies/demons/nuttiness/voices in our heads)
Therefore to champion the right of free speech on someone who actually advocates murder, and provides a websites for a hit list is chosing a poor example as your absolute right to free speech.
As a for instance; If some aged hippie, green peace warrior had strongly agreed with our dear Prof. and gone on to act on the suggestion, would the Prof be liable? Or just the murderer, and just bad luck for the victim.
As for unconditional free speech do you also support the yelling of fire in cinemas as an expression of free speech.
Unfortunately the world is no longer a nice place where we can all sit down as adults and have robust, intelligent debates and afterwards agree to disagree and move on to have a beer. People seem to take things very personally and have a very strong sense of self righteousness about their beliefs and that the other bloke is wrong, and stupidly so. (as an example or current political position has become tribal where each side believe the other side eats babies)
Therefore the Prof needs to be condemned, unconditionally, for advocating murder on named individuals.
162
It’s hard Paul, but I do think yelling “fire” in a cinema is OK, mainly because I don’t know where the limit of free speech should lie.
I’m not an ethicist. There are about 7,000,000,000 people in the world and I would trust about 6,999,999,997 of them for an ethical opinion before I would trust my own. It’s just the other two who always seem to be shouting at me.
314
“mainly because I don’t know where the limit of free speech should lie”
On this I feel everyone here would agree. However to function as a society we, for good or bad, need rules.
And we have lots of them (including several hundred politicians who feel honour bound to make more)
We have womens rights, racial rights, gay rights where anything offensive said will bring down the ire of the establishment. I feel we have gone too far in mollycoddling a few special interest groups, we should all be treated the same.
I am willing to put a limit on free speech, being; be truthful and do not advocate violence.
Of course the greyness it that does lead to the need for a referee and, other than myself, do not know anyone with the appropriate ability.
In the case of the good Professor, I would explain to him that what he has advocated could be easily be echoed by a disgruntled bunch of death metal fans, and they could advocate the murder of Musicologists as a blight on the music industry. Hopefully getting him to understand the gravity of what he has done, by making it personal and seeing if he would accept that what he has done to others is acceptable to be done to him. (I have a very strong, personal dislike of the use or threat of violence)
So if you “don’t know where the limit of free speech should lie” and dont make your own stand, then some smarmy politician will do it for you (and in fact are).
161
You make good points there Paul, but on the main point, “be truthful and don’t advocate violence” I just can’t agree.
One person’s advocacy of violence is another’s advocacy of freedom, and the ABC’c truth just isn’t my truth.
It’s an ethical dilemna, and it won’t be solved in my lifetime.
410
Free speech is indeed tricky. The current limitations on free speech seem to be mainly to protect the rich and powerful from others speaking the truth.
222
Free speech comes with consequences.
If you shout “fire” in the cinema, when there isn’t one, surely you should have to refund all tickets from your own pocket.
Same thing applies to CAGW, I would love to see the catastrophists held up against their predictions, and pay through the nose for the money wasted. !!
100
Is it better to be discouraged from shouting “Fire” until you are absolutely sure, when it might be too late for all the ticket holders to get out?
(the film can always be rerun, if it was a false alarm)
10
You’ve got to be kidding Jo- Calling down a calamnity on myself or those who disagree with me equally hardly qualifies as an incitement to commit a crime. I am willing to take my chances on prosecution for that.
More thumbs up than down before I got snipped, even going against the flow.
Loosen up Jo, free speech ain’t that hard.
Put it back and let the people decide.
211
Yes let the people decide. Gnome, I’ll wager a Swans 2013 projected premiership winning season ticket against one of yours (Dockkers?) that if I wrote and distributed a leaflet accusing you of being a peadophile (NOT TRUE – this is by way of argument like Mr. Music’s) and that you should be shot through the head by a group of community vigilanties at some time in the future after they have formed their people’s court, pronounced you guilty (on my hypothesis) and formed the firing squad, you would:
1. Contact the police immediately to have me prosecuted; and
2. Sue me for defamation.
Which under Australian law you would be entitled to do.
I reckon you would not defend my “free speech” right to defame and advocate your killing. Well how about it Gnome? Would ya?
01
While I agree free speech is a good thing and I personally don’t buy into the “hate crime” laws (no one ever kindly murders anyone–stupid term), the fact that the laws exist mean everyone is subject to them. If we ignore the law, or apply it randomly, it means nothing. We have a similar problem here with a newscaster holding up a banned piece of an assault weapon on TV. These are illegal where the segment was taped. There are calls to arrest said news anchor.
If we don’t arrest the anchor, we send the message that the law is not applied to all–or that the law is meaningless and go ahead and possess illegal gun parts. If we do, people say it was no big deal and we are picking on the anchor. If the law is on the books and we don’t uniformly enforce it, people disregard the law. Yes, the correct thing is to remove the law. Until someone does, everyone breaking the law needs to be at least called on the carpet. No exceptions.
30
Parncutt also thinks he’s a finance expert and recommends 3 global taxes
Of course having wealth as you know is the problem! So let’s tax it and of course, you guessed it! The very emissions which make us wealthy.
3 urgently needed taxes:
•Global wealth tax
•Global transaction tax (Tobin)
•Global emissions tax
131
Who would have thought that a university academic in the esteemed field of systematic musicology with alternative opinions about the desirability of executing CAGW skeptics is also… GASP … In favour of higher taxes…
150
Just out of interest, here is question. What was the top marginal income tax rate in the US during WW2?
112
Or just for a contrast- what was the top marginal rate in the UK when the Beatles were on top?
(Hint- they hadn’t gone decimal then, and nineteen and sixpence in the pound didn’t sound as ridiculous then as 97.5% might sound now.)
04
Wow. 1971 and the pommy top rate got cut to 75% on income over 20k.
And in Oz the top rate was 70% on over $200k.
Times have changed.
05
so in 1971 people on the equivalent of AUD 1,040,000 pa paid 70% as the top rate in the top bracket.
Their total tax was not at 70% only the last bit.
I wish I had been on that money in 71.
00
Google is our friend!!
Take 1946 after the war hysteria is over.
Bottom rate 19%
Top Rate 86.45%
Thems wus they days!!
Interestingly, in 1980, the rate applicable on income over $212k was 70%.
08
According to a book I’m reading, it was 94 cents in the dollar (so not quite as high as in the UK, Gnome).
Anyway, the interesting bit is how the US (and they aren’t alone) now have huge deficits, and really low tax rates. It makes you think that just maybe, high tax rates for the wealthy aren’t quite as silly as some might have you think.
[ok lets get back on topic. You can continue this on the recent weekend unthreaded. mod oggi]
29
It’s a joke for a man living in a country trying hard to go the same way as those he’s criticizing while he’s approving of it to make such statements.
He really ought to keep his big mouth shut.
20
John, the better question isn’t what the marginal tax rate was but instead how many people actually paid that much. You’ll find there were a myriad of loopholes that only an idiot would need to pay that much.
00
Check out the difference between “marginal rate” and “effective rate”. Mark D is correct–no one paid 94%. Heck, people are fleeing France for 85% rates today.
10
Perhaps those who ask questions should be sure they understand the question. Or at least refrain from asking things designed to mislead. This is about math and science, not politics. Stick to the math and science.
51
Actually sheri, comment threads on blogs tend to be about whatever the participants want them to be, within the bounds of what the mods allow and there was actually a tax component to Parcutts comments.
05
And in this case, the moderator said no.
I’ll be back for weekend unthreaded to see if the antagonist comment returns. 🙂
40
.
Parncutt & the Uni of Graz both apologised as the should have.
But it is the others of the CAGW who stood back and did nothing (Cook etc), who will be judged in years to come for allowing the idea of genocide by their silence on the Parncutt call for extermination.
Genocide is a path to people eradication – NOT a pathway to alter their behaviour.
112
Dave,
This isn’t the end of it. Parncutt is just one in a long line of Would be scepticidal maniacs.
Since the science is not on their side they will be seeking to silence us by any and all means possible – even via systematic musicology.
This latest attempt failed but there will be others. We must all remain vigilant.
121
Oh no! the humanity! Not genocide by systematic musicology! Do these people have no mercy?
140
There is a very brief clip on an old horror show in the US… two people end up in the same room, Forever. One will spend eternity enjoying his classical music… the other is in Hell.
80
Genocide- not likely- me and Bulldust have no genetic connection, even though we (reluctantly) agree about global warming.
38
doG’s! “Bulldust and I have no genetic connection”
Hmm….
Gnome: small cement based life form, often considered cute, generally found harassing milder mannered creatures at the bottom of the garden and air-fishing.
Bulldust: dried, oft-times smelly and considered generally unpleasant expectoration of a non gender specific bovine bottom.
Yup, ok, i’ll agree. No genetic connection. 🙂
08
why dont these global warming cultists just come up with better/ANY science ?
The other day something came out about West Antarctica being 2 degrees warmer than they thought
I asked the question on whirlpool:
“So all that previous science on west Antarctica was wrong and in fact was out by 2 degrees ?
and now better science claims its warming even faster ! What a surprise !”
You can make an account and start posting right away in this Whirlpool Thread.
You dont need 50 posts.
sign up and start getting stuck in to these wankers
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=2029823&p=-1&#bottom
PS After I posted numerous anti global warming articles I was banned.
Clearly whirlpool is just a leftist lovin site for the brain dead…………..
101
The Queensland University of Technology used stronger words in condemning the actions of an a University administrator (not professor) when he did the harmless but politically incorrect action of smoking a page out of the Quran and the Bible and posting it on Youtube.
http://www.news.com.au/national-old/lawyer-alex-stewart-smokes-pages-from-the-koran-and-bible-and-says-we-should-get-over-book-burning/story-e6frfkvr-1225919970728
It seems a Professor calling for the mass execution of people who disagree with him ranks lower than an administrator at the university offending some members of a particular religoious group.
140
DeSmogblog’s address: 3000 Royal Centre, 1055 West Georgia St, Vancouver, BCV6E 3R3
I intend to write to them at length on the nature of Parncutt’s “hate crime” as Monckton rightly categorises it and question why such “altruistic” associations ally themselves with death threats instead of denouncing them.
Jo is only one. If more write or email then it would help enormously. Thanks if you have already done so.
50
Gnome Do you know what a specious argument is? Free speech is great but as you can see from Combet’s comment it is not acceptable to harass scientists. So equally it is not acceptable for Professor Parncutt to issue death threats to sceptics. Although you purport to uphold free speech I think your real credo is that “all speech should be free but some should be more free than others” (to paraphrase George Orwell).
172
OK Ian. Now I am waiting with bated breath for you to explain how you figure that.
Really- I am (as usual) in an ethical quandary. If I am wrong I would welcome your considered correction.
011
Maybe I missed something, but Parncutt made no death threat. He suggested that certain actions could be made illegal, and punishable by death. Just like taking drugs into Malaysia, and immunising against polio (at least in the eyes of the Taliban dickheads).
So just to be sure you understand, he did not issue any death threats.
227
I wonder if a politician issued a statement asking to legislate making certain religious observance and practice illegal and punishable by death, this group would feel justified in viewing this as a DEATH THREAT.
I cannot believe some people here are trying to defend Dah Parncutter by invoking a right to “free speech”. The very ESSENCE of Dah Parncutters ideology is that dangerous free speech should be stopped by killing those who practice it.
Therefore it’s a complete logical fallacy to defend Dah Parncutter
170
Yep John, you missed something; everything, actually. As usual.
The learned professor was suggesting that those who do not agree with his particularly warped sense of scientific theory should be executed. In other words, he would like the state to do his dirty work for him. He will use his position as learned professor to push this objective, and, if successful, would be happily supplying the bullets for the firing squad.
It’s a helluva lot easier than explaining to people why the historical global climate has varied in the last 100k years without the benefit of industrialisation, isn’t it? And don’t pull the old Malankavich cycles one on us again please, it doesn’t wash any more – not in this time frame. Why not try telling us why solar cycles don’t have anything to do with Grecian, Roman and Medieval warmings? Ever had a read of CO2 Science some time, maybe? Didn’t think so.
Question for you. How would you feel if your opinions – lets call them “Thoughtcime” – were deemed a capital offence?
Speedy
190
Doesnt seemJohn actually readeverything Parncutt wrote. He actually described a “hypothetical” situation in which “asceptic” was to be murdered by a woman (“or man if you like”) who he then dubbs a heroine for such an act.
If someone running a gang spoke of a “hypothetical” situation in which someone resembling the leader of a rival gang were to be murdered by someone who he would then regard as worthy of reward…this would in most civilised polities be classed as an incitement to murder.
Lets stop pissin in the wind: Parncutt published just such an incitement to murder.
This is serious. It goes way beyond a “climate debate”. In the USA people who have made online endorsements of Al Qaida and its affiliates that were structurally similar to Parncutts text are now in prison. I havent kept a tally but its quite a number. In the UK a Muslim girl who wrote POETRY in praise of terrorist killing went to prison as a direct result (the crime of “glorifying terrorism”).
It would be best if someone who is either a resident or citizen of Austria launch the police complaint. Are we more than justwind-bags?
100
No he didn’t, and I think you are particularly stupid for thinking so.
120
“…just such an incitement to murder…@
Yet again John doesnt actually respondto what is written…”just such” here refers to several provided examples of statements deemed by several legal jurisdictions to constitute an incitemrnt to murder. It is by THIR definition that what he wrote constitutes either an incitement to “terrorism” (US examples) or “glorification” of “terrorism” (UK example). These arent fictitious examples. OK, “terrorism” or “murder”, splitting hairs. Therefore its clearly the case that ots John Brokeswho is the idiot for not following a simple argument.
Brookes might not in his opinion think it was an incitement to murder BUT by measure of the laws of the US or UK, Parncutts “hypothetical” situation IS an incitement to murder. Sop Brookes is doubly the idiot for thinking his opinion is more substantive than laws that have been enforced.
90
That would be a skeptic with cleaning based OCD???
07
I am not certain why this counts as “incitement to murder”. In the US, this type of language occurs frequently. Politicians, especially on the Liberal side often say those who oppose them should be executed or simply taken out. (Google will not give the data I need, so I can’t site examples. That’s what happens when search engines don’t…..) People puts death threats against Romney and Obama on Twitter during the election. Many blogs have statements to the effect that Obama should be taken out, or Romney or whomever. For this to actually constitute a death threat, there has to be credible evidence that the person really does mean to kill the target. It’s hard to find evidence of this usually and the threat is ignored. Maybe in Australia, it’s different. (Note: I said above if the law calls this “hate speech”, then that offense should be prosecuted. That is different from a death threat.)
20
Yup, we dont have the nuttbaggers running around with vast paramilitary arsenals shooting people because they dont like their politics. Oh, and mangoes are REALLY cheap for REALLY tasty ones at the moment. 🙂
06
Come on Catamon
You know that mangoes are still as expensive as the first week they came out this season.
There was a glut for a few days but they were mostly a bit soft and sold off cheap.
KK 🙂
20
I am definitely seeing that Australia is different. We don’t have “vast paramilitary arsenals shooting people because they don’t like their politics” here either. We do have some really evil and really crazy people who procure weapons and behave badly. I’m sure there are those who behave badly in Australia, too.
What I am surprised by is the differences in freedoms in Australia versus America. I do understand that this is apparently what your country wants and that’s fine. I am just used to living in a country where freedom of speech is really pretty much free. I commented elsewhere that I really doubt America would be a comfortable place for Australians to move and vice-versa. I am not saying it’s good or bad. It’s just a huge difference that I was not aware of.
This is one of the nice things about the internet–expanding our horizons.
50
,
KK
Even cartoonists from The Age are laughing at the likes of Catamango.
Very large L
30
Dave, that article in the age with the TV cartoon was great.
Was that Catamon hiding behind the couch and throwing stuff at the screen?
KK
20
.
KK,
Catamango Tango – is on the floor – he is the carpet in the cartoon.
They will get trod on by their own kind trying to evacuate the place in a year or so.
The Uni of Graz has apologised along with Parncutt – yet these DAGW’s continue their useless bantering and tomato throwing. They are GONE.
The DAG’s are gone.
10
Thats because arsenals dont shoot people, the nutbaggers who own them do.
Gabrielle Giffords may like to differ on that assertion.
I know a number of Americans who say they are a lot more comfortable here. Has somethign to do with being further away from the Teabaggers.
05
Yes, Catamon, I understand that to some people ONE incident comprises a vast army of nut bags. Sorry, anomalies are just that–anomalies. Besides, take away the guns, you have Oklahoma City. Not to mention how many people died at the hands of the FBI and other government agencies. Obama authorized giving assault weapons to Mexican drug lords with no way to trace the weapons. I surely would trust my government to be the only one with guns–yes, sir.
I am very happy those Americans who don’t like the “Teabaggers” moved to Australia. In fact, I have offered people one-way tickets to countries they thought they would be more comfortable living in. I fully encourage people if they don’t like America to move elsewhere. You seem to think this is some kind of bad thing. Not at all. If American ways are not for you, you should move. Why would I want someone to live where they are unhappy?
10
I am not any expert on US law. I also think that a country that has regular massacres in its schools would be the last place we would look for guidance on the issue of advocacy of violence and the speech rights. This may come as a shock but you should read up on US laws in regard to terrorism before you claim that there is free speech in the US. And your President claims the right to summarily execute (including US citizens) by the use of executive power. Obama dropped a bomb on one of your citizens recently who was making videos saying pretty much what Pancutt said. He advocated the killing of his intellectual and religous opponents. Your country also killed his 16 year old son in Yemen in a seperate instance of execute mandated killing. The boy did not support his father’s views.
00
Interesting you brought this on up Sheri.
Looking into it, the “Fast and Furious” operation from 2009, was a follow on from the earlier “Operation Wide Receiver” initiated under the previous, Repuglican administration of Bush.
So its more accurate to say that Obama authorised American law enforcement to continue let American crims exploit lax gun laws that pretty much let anyone buy whatever they want to re-sell assault weapons to Mexican drug lords, to try and collect information on those drug lords.
That’s a little less sinister than what you were asserting. Not that such an operation strikes me as being a particularly smart thing to do, for so long.
00
I know you spout a load of nonsense here about a lot of things but you clearly don’t understand but you should be aware that Jo and David are protected by the WA Criminal Code. Relevantly s 338A of the Criminal Code, provides as follows:
“338A. Any person who makes a threat with intent to –
(a) gain a benefit, pecuniary or otherwise, for any person;
(b) cause a detriment, pecuniary or otherwise, to any person;
(c) prevent or hinder the doing of an act by a person who is lawfully entitled to do that act; or
(d) compel the doing of an act by a person who is lawfully entitled to abstain from doing that act,
is guilty of a crime and is liable –
(e) where the threat is to kill a person, to imprisonment for 10 years;
(f) in any other case, to imprisonment for 7 years.”
I draw your attention to subsections 338A(b), (c) and (d). Pancutt;s threat involved killing which carries a maximum 10 year scentence in WA.
So what is a “threat”? The common definition is “An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment”.
Your contributions are absurd, unpleasant and immoral.
20
My contribution above was directed at Brookes not Dave.
10
I would characterise his citing a list of real people as examples of the intended targets of his proposed measure as a death threat.
If an MP drafted a piece of legislation to reintroduce thedeath penalty, they would not reference specific individuals as being the target.
There is the difference and the reason that you should write to Parncutt expressing your outrage.
20
Well done, that man!! Serious hat-tip to you, milord Monckton, please be assured we thoroughly appreciate your efforts!
100
Also, I just this minute clicked on Parncutt’s link (from the Monckton emails), and guess what? – “Error 404: Object not found!”
!!!!!
50
Proposal: Parncutt may be welcomed at the University of Western Australia as a teammate of Lewandowsky to further increase the universities reputation.
121
Gnome Looks as if Jonova has taken issue with your concept of free speech, which partly assists my point. You’re in an ethical quandary because you can’t seem to distinguish what is acceptable free speech and what is not. I would think there are so many precedents in history as to why carte blanche should not be the standard. Surely you can think of instances where the dominant political class has made the most appalling incitements to violence. How can you possibly justify such comments in the cause of “free speech”?
120
Yes Ian- how can I disagree with you when I am in an ethical quandary? Perhaps though, actions, rather than words should be limited by law.
Is this a dissident site? Should our dissidence be the subject of sanction?
26
Stick to your guns Gnome.
When people who believe in ‘free speech’ also believe there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed, the argument becomes one of where that line should be.
Hence, a foot in the door for some laws restricting speech and expression. The argument is lost.
This is exactly what has happened in the AGW argument. As soon as the sceptics said they believe CO2 causes some warming, the argument became a semantic one of how much warming. (Maybe one or two cigarettes a day is not so bad for your health)
In the meantime, the horse has bolted, the taxes are in, the rent seeking industry has flourished to the point of being too big to fail, enormous departments and bureaucracies are well established and the semantic argument of how much warming, will continue for decades. Futility at its best.
No need for teams of prosecutors and volumes of laws to stop idiots from yelling fire in crowded cinemas. (It doesn’t work. See climate alarmism, PETA anarchy, hippies tying themselves to trees and machinery, right to lifers bombing research facilities etc as examples) Human nature will take care of it much more effectively and efficiently. Sooner or later, a couple of angry patrons will beat the shit out of the yeller (human nature) which will not only stop the yeller from yelling again but will deter others from doing the same thing.
A redneck primitive attitude I hear you say? Let me remind you, so long as you play the game on their terms, you will ALWAYS LOSE. ALWAYS.
A man I like and respect has threatened a pooffo pinko sandal wearing leftard musician of no significance with legal action if this pooffo pinko doesn’t retract his irrelevant diatribe.
One may well remind the good lord who makes these laws these days and may well further ask what happens if these laws are tightened (as may well happen in Australia) to a point where we are donating to Jo and David so that they can defend themselves a la’ the Thompsons.
Jo may well be in jail in a couple of years time because of her ‘free speech’ on this blog. Her prosecutors may well remind her about her current post rejoicing Moncktons ‘success’ in shutting down whatsis name the musician. Goose; meet gander
Free speech is like pregnancy, you can’t have just a little of it. You’ve either got free speech or you haven’t.
Are you offended by whatsis name the musicians diatribe? Get over it, you won’t wake up the next day with rabies because of it.
Oh and all this comparison to the Nazis? Give me a break. Whatsis name the musician has comparable charisma to that of Hitler? He is preaching better things for a beaten people living a 20 year depression?
Get a grip, get real, be objective, move on, nothing to see here.
63
Hi Baa
I agree with some of your comment and find a need to discuss other bits.
“Free speech is like pregnancy” in that at the end of the pregnancy you have a baby.
Likewise at the end off the wrong type of free speech we have possibly of the “easily led” acting out the
ideas contained in the “free speech” and we will get VIOLENCE.
An example.
In Australia it has become OK to say that we all have the right to “drink” and enjoy ourselves.
True.
But the way that “truth” has been misused here is very sad.
We have kids drinking heavily from the age of 15 to 30, right through the most crucial years of their brain development. Enormous damage is done to future prospects and it is largely an invisible problem.
Foetal alcohol syndrome not so easy to hide and is present in far too many Australian babies who are born to mothers who “drink” because they have heard someone say “we have the right to drink”.
It’s a bit like saying “we have the right to bear arms”; in both cases there are serious consequences
that could have been avoided if there was GUIDANCE to countered the message from the right to free speech.
KK 🙂
41
Hi KK,
I think we need to be careful to distinguish between “freedoms”.
At worst, an individual’s speech may be offensive or be inciting violence. If I find it offensive then I may try to engage in reasoned dialogue with that person to try to get them to acknowledge that their comments are offensive etc.
I demand the right to be offended.
On inciting violence, I would argue that only those who were predisposed to violence will subsequently behave violently. By the same token, should many of the impassioned pleas by political leaders to get the community to engage in war to defend the nation, be considered acts to incite violence and should they have been immediately incarcerated? Hmm, Sir Winston’s “We will fight them on the beaches…” comes to mind.
On the freedom to bear arms, the implication is that one then has the right to use the weapon. The simple appearance of a side arm invokes concepts of threat, violence, fear and danger. How do I know that this person is sane? How do I know they are not another Martin Bryant? For this person to carry a weapon, what is it that he fears yet I do not?
With freedom of speech I have the freedom to listen and learn. If I learn that this or that person is irrational then I am forewarned and I can take appropriate action. In my opinion, Parncutt should seek psychiatric or psychological help. Maybe his university and his friends could help him.
I agree with Baa Humbug, the threat of legal action is merely an attempt to change someone’s behaviour.
“It is indubitably more sinister to want to change someone’s behaviour without changing their mind first.” – Joanne Nova
Without complete freedom of speech, I am just another brick in the wall, restrained by those around me.
20
Hi Max
This comment needs qualifying; life is never black and white.
“By the same token, should many of the impassioned pleas by political leaders to get the community to
engage in war to defend the nation”.
In world war 11 we had Australians going off to fight half way around the world.
A very dubious benefit to our nation on the face of it.
Later we had Japanese submarines sinking boats off our eastern coast and shelling major infrastructure
items like the steelworks here at Newcastle and tapping on the door in PNG.
In this sort of situation you don’t need to read between the lines; you organise defense OR wind up as
a Japanese colony.
Enlightened speech will show the concrete and checkable facts behind difficult situations whereas
deceptive speakers will just give more uncheckable waffle in response to questions.
KK
20
Hi MaxL
Finished reading your post.
I admire your idealism.
The present rate of violent assault in Newcastle seems to be linked to our present ideas of personal freedom.
On average there are two serious head injuries that totally incapacitate victims each year (permanent wheelchair for life) and many others that are borderline in terms of permanent brain damage.
I suspect that a lot of this behaviour has to do with Freedom of speech issues involving the distribution of movies that depict violence: ie. Free Speech about how great it feels to be violent’
Perhaps if you went into town after ten pm most nights you would meet your target audience.
Have a talk to them and try to dissuade them from harmful aggression?
I can easily picture the response with you lying in John Hunter emergency ward with your head encased in a large ice pack to slow brain damage.
It’s not that simple and doesn’t always work in the real world.
KK
40
KK says..
Pregnancy ends and one has a baby. Free speech ends, one has violence.
You say “wrong type of free speech”. Define it for me, what is the ‘wrong type’, to whom is it wrong and who decides.
Didn’t the rulers of Germany 80 years ago decide what was the ‘wrong type’ of free speech?
The point is, free speech is the ultimate protector of the ultimate minority group, i.e. the individual.
Free speech as an inalienable right is the ultimate defence for the ultimate minority.
Why do you think despots ALWAYS but ALWAYS round up the educated classes and the media before embarking on their despotic ways? They do it to stop free speech, the only impediment to their desires. Once done, the only free speech happens on their terms, i.e. propaganda.
We see shreds of this in Australia as we speak. Haul a few Andrew Bolts before the courts, threaten the media with new restrictions and before you know it people only hear one side i.e. propaganda.
Why do you think AGW alarmists are so desperate to keep sceptics away from microphones? Once you take the other sides only means of communication i.e. free speech, you don’t have a debate, the argument is settled.
It is gross hypocrisy to demand that sceptics voices are heard whilst at the same time shout down an irrelevant obscure musician with threats of legal action just because we didn’t like what he had to say.
CAN WE NOT SEE THAT AGW ALARMISTS BELIEVE THEIR CAUSE IS SO IMPORTANT THAT INSIGNIFICANT OBSCURE SCEPTICS SHOULD BE SHOUTED DOWN AND THREATENED WITH LEGAL ACTION BECAUSE THEY DON’T LIKE WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY.
CAN WE NOT SEE THAT THAT WONDERFUL MAN MONCKTON HAS MADE A GRAVE ERROR IN JUDGEMENT BY TAKING THE ACTION HE HAS.
HE HAS INADVERTANTLY APPROVED OF THE ALARMISTS TACTICS BY PRACTICING THE SAME TACTICS HIMSELF.
And since it is the alarmists who currently control most of the MSM, the universities, government departments and scientific institutions, it is us sceptics who will suffer the most by these tactics. Indeed we have been suffering these tactics for a couple of decades now. We have been PROTESTING AGAINST THESE TACTICS for all that time, ONLY TO FIND OURSELVES NOW ENDORSING THESE TACTICS BY OUR VERY OWN ACTIONS.
No wonder John Cook is staying silent on this matter. Why would he interrupt an enemy who is hell bent on shooting itself in the foot?
All power to the pooffo pinko sandal wearing tree hugging professor of the art of flute stroking. He can call for my beheading as often as he wants in whatever forum he wants.
Sticks and stones.
42
Hi Baa
I would be in favour of ABSOLUTE free speech if the following was the case:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/parncutt-death-threat-uni-of-graz-shocked-monckton-gets-it-withdrawn-with-apology-john-cook-says-nothing/#comment-1214415
There have to be some checks and balances and I suspect that those advocating free speech have not been up close to the final results of that “freedom”.
Not everyone in the community is rational and under self control.
KK 🙂
20
You can have unconditional free speech – as long as you balance it with unconditional accountability for the impact of your free speech.
I.e. You would be welcome to scream “Fire” in a crowded theater where there was no fire, provide you were equally willing to take your punishment afterwards.
People are getting lost here arguing about the Right – without considering the balancing Responsibility/Accountability.
80
Hi Ex Brilliant
“You can have unconditional free speech – as long as you balance it with unconditional accountability for the impact of your free speech”.
I’m envious – it was lurking in the background but I couldn’t get it out.
KK 🙂
30
ExWarmist says..
(my emphasis)
To which Humbug replies…
“If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?”
I’m intrigued to know what has been the impact of Parncutts free speech. Do enlighten me please.
So far as I can tell, all that’s happened is a break-out of intense debate about free speech. I’d say that that was a big positive (inadvertent as it may have been, but that’s the beauty of free speech). Maybe we should send him a thank you email instead of hate emails.
31
Hi Baa
“I’m intrigued to know what has been the impact of Parncutts free speech”
Are there skinheads in Europe , National Socialist types who might be encouraged to think that they
would be acting for the community if they carried out the “Sentence”?
They don’t need any encouragement. Free speech is a wonderful ideal, lets try it in utopia and see how it goes.
KK
20
KK says (very disappointingly)
KK would you say there was a 90-95% probability that some skinheads might carry out the ‘sentence’?
KK do you see why your argument is EXACTLY THE SAME AS THAT OF THE POOFFO PINKO LEFTARD PROFESSOR?
So let me rephrase that in your words..
If you can’t see that you have become just another Pooffo Pinko Parncutt, then there is lots of soul searching to be done by you.
But by all means, continue to debate and argue whilst you’re soul searching.
41
Hi Baa
I understand the argument for Free Free Speech.
Intellectually it is undeniable.
All I am saying is if you allow free speech there can and will eventually be consequences and or tricky situations.
For example:
-A person lines up at the airline counter for a delayed flight and says they are going to carry a bomb on board and detonate it because they were kept waiting.
Scenario Baa. The Airline Staff member simply takes it as free speech and waves the person onto the plane.
Most Likely Scenario: The Staff member presses a button and the airport is locked down until the prospective passenger is arrested and isolated.
or How about a real case study.
An Australian year 10 student nominates to friends that he intends to hang himself on a particular day at a particular time at a certain location in the school.
Baa Scenario: Just ignore him; it’s free speech.
Actual Scenario: Student is taken into care of a government agency which has him assessed by a mental health professional. He does not attend school on the nominated day and eventually returns the next week.
Northern European Scenario: A person with the name of Anders Br is listening to the free speech of others who claim that their group within society is hard done by. They suggest that a mass murder is the only way to bring attention to their cause.
From an intellectual point of view Free Speech is necessary.
From a practical point of view there are going to be problems.
Do you have solutions?
KK
20
Yeah I do. First and foremost I’d stop conflating direct threats, with free speech of opinions and ideas.
Otherwise we end up….well lets take your airport analogy.
A couple of guys at the airport lounge having a beer waiting for a flight. One says to the other “Hey did you hear the one about the terrorist and a parachute?” All of a sudden a bunch of security heavies descend on these guys taking them into custody for hours causing them to miss their flight.
How about this real life story. A couple of women are walking past a bar. They hear an entertainer singing the old classic “everybody was kung fu fighting”. The poor diddums were so offended they complain to the authorities. The singer is arrested for “suspicion of racially aggravated harassment”
That year 10 student obviously needed help. Your example has nothing to do with the debate about free speech.
31
KK, may I suggest alternate scenarios to those given?
The bomber says nothing, boards the plane then detonates the bomb.
The year ten student says nothing but hangs himself.
Those who suggest mass murder is the only way to bring attention to their cause, do so because they believe they have been ignored.
None of the above scenarios are prevented by limiting freedom of speech. In fact to minimize such events, allowing them freedom of speech and (more importantly) listening to and communicating with them may prevent such actions.
Alarmists want immediate action because they believe that the end is nigh and no one is doing what they should be doing NOW! The result is they are getting frustrated and they are taking that frustration out on those who oppose their view point. That’s why they demand silencing their critics.
I want them to talk about their concerns, I want them to discuss and debate, but they can’t and they won’t.
“It is only by submitting your ideas or beliefs to the rigours of public discussion and ridicule that you can be sure they are correct, true, right. If you erect a moral or legal force-field around your theory, denying anyone the chance to pick it apart, then it isn’t “the truth”; it’s a prejudice, a received wisdom, which you cleave to more out of habit than conviction.” – Brendan O’Neill
Oh how I wish more ideas and beliefs could be discussed.
10
Hi Guys,
Another way of framing this is as follows.
The government of free citizens occurs as a mandate derived from the citizens.
The responsibility of a free citizen is to hold their government to account for it’s actions.
Free speech is a necessary prerequisite for a free citizen to hold their government to account.
Abridging free speech limits a free citizen in the discharge of their responsibility to hold their government to account.
Case study: CAGW – Government funded science, and government policies being held to account by free citizens – free speech is a necessary prerequisite for such science & policy to be held to account.
The process of re-framing is to think of the necessary duties, responsibilities, accountabilities of full citizenship and the “rights’ should flow from what is necessary to discharge those duties, responsibilities & accountabilities.
40
Well put Ex.
Free speech has the essential quality of being able to influence the government by non violent means while still remaining within the law.
It is interesting that Mr Parncutt has jumped past this discussion phase you are talking about and is advocating illegal action outside the legal framework to get what he wants.
His proper course of action would be to make a submission to his Local Member of Parliament who would then represent his views.
Parncutts freedom of speech relates specifically to the Science of Global Warming; he can put his view in any way he likes and discuss science until the cows come home.
He does not however have the right to advocate the murder or extermination of people he disagrees with.
I just don’t believe that the type of comments he made should be viewed as “harmless” or “those of a pinko nutter” and just brushed off.
I believe that there are large portions of the population who are susceptible to comments like Parncutts and that when heard over and over such comments may become an obsession that turns to reality.
From comments above it would seem that most European countries and the USA have legislation which would almost certainly cover his comments and hold him to account.
It would seem that from previous comments there are very few countries that have absolute free speech and I believe for very good reason.
KK 🙂
00
How is advocating that if skeptics are found guilty by a jury of scientists of causing the death of future generations advocating murder? Advocating murder is saying “They should be shot now”. What Parncutt advocated takes a special jury (or does Australia use juries of scientists now?), the crime be proven and then the execution be carried out. Not to mention, as far as I can tell, he would have to get the death penalty reintroduced.
Another example: In the US, kids end up committing suicide when bullied. Should bullies be legally silenced? Do we have trials and jail them so they cannot say bad things? Bad things happen if we don’t silence and/or punish them severely. Outlaw speech that anyone complains is bullying. I can see McCarthyism returning immediately.
Do we ban the videos that animal rights activists don’t like? Some animal rights activists are violent, so should we not get rid of the videos lest they act? No hunting shows, no farm shows, probably no shows with pets since activists consider owning a pet equal to slavery in some cases.
Free speech does have consequences and punishment for some actions is merited–when they fall under current laws. It’s a very tricky thing. However, no matter how much speech you outlaw, You will never feel safe in the world and prevent all bad things. What is to keep the government from outlawing skeptic’s speech because someone might go whack and kill their relative for lying about climate change? What about the person who is laid off and someone tells him it was due to climate change (say he mined coal). Then he reads this blog, finds out he was lied to, laid off due to that lie and kills his boss. Skeptic speech lead to this–if no one pointed out the lie, the guy might just be mad about losing his job and resign himself to believing he is helping save the planet.
Blame the person who hears the speech and then breaks the law–that is the guilty party in all but a few, rare cases.
20
I think Baa Humbug has it right, and you add the other half of the equation – personal accountability.
What we have instead of individual freedom is governments putting more and more restrictions on our freedoms by creating crimes which they choose to be crimes – legislation against our right to free speech is unlawful in Common Law.
The quote usually attributed to Voltaire but which was a summary of his attitude by a biographer [http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/331.html], holds good.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Who has been threatened here? Scientists in general who are deemed “denialists” and specifically those named on the list Parncutt linked to – he is accountable to them for the exercise of his free speech (which he doesn’t have in Austria and if he’d reclaim his right he should take it up with the government..).
A class action against Parncutt by “denialist” scientists is one way to go, but particularly those named could have considered taking this route holding him personally responsible for his words and perhaps that would have been the next logical step if he hadn’t retracted and apologised.
I can’t see anything of human dignity in Monckton’s handling of the matter which endorses legislation against our inalienable rights to freedom of speech.
Just for the info I wanted to put in a good definition of inalienable and turned to my old battered COD, which simply defined inablienable as not alienable and wouldn’t elucidate further by giving a definition of alienable..
So here’s one from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/alienable.html:
“alienable Definition
Capable of being taken away or transferable. Right of ownership of a property is alienable but the fundamental civil, human, and natural rights are inalienable.”
We who have the principle of Common Law have an amazing heritage:
I read somewhere Monckton saying that Britain was a Police State, in a description he gave of work he had done to aid someone through the court system, but the acceptance of this in his action against Parncutt, of legislation trumping Common Law, I think, should be deplored..
11
Correction – I’ve just learned something new, there is a difference between “inalienable” and “unalienable”, my battered COD won’t define the latter at all..
Unalienable versus Inalienable:
I’ve just searched the link I gave http://www.britsattheirbest.com/freedom/f_british_constitution.htm for “inalienable” and it doesn’t appear, it’s unalienable rights in Common Law.
10
True Myrrh
We have a wonderful code of operation for our societies.
That’s undeniable and unalienable.
What we are dealing with is the absolute right to use free speech to incite others to commit crime.
I’m not too sure how that fits into the rights of others in the same community to go about their lawful business without being injured or murdered.
If an individual saw a psychologist because they had heard about these threats to Sceptics, I suspect that the Psychologist would suggest, as Sheri does, to just laugh at it and ignore it.
At a higher level it is likely that constant repetition of threats may see someone on the edge just flip out and do the deed.
Legislation in many countries suggests that they understand the need for sensible limits on “free” speech where others rights to the same are threatened.
KK
10
Okay, Kinky–enough with putting words in my mouth. I did not advocate complete, unfettered freedom of speech. I advocated mostly unfettered speech. Your point applies to most everything in society. Where do your rights end and others begin? There is no black and white on that. My stated position is to have as much free speech as possible and when it seems to cross the line, that is what courts are for (Yes, KK, laws only punish for misdeeds, not prevent them. Which is a problem in the idea of people being convicted of “future” deaths. But the freedom to say it has little to do with how a stupid an idea it is. If that were the criteria…..)
You’re probably right about the psychologist–though he might just tell you to deal with it as bad things are part of life. If the “threat” became stalking, the advice would be different.
Arguments about whether or not words can incite through repetition are probably correct–but the standard that says violent movies cause violence can also be used to say skeptics cause inaction on a real global threat. If most people think climate change is real, then the skeptics are causing people angst, which is bad. One can outlaw saying things like you don’t believe in homosexuality as a moral behaviour because it is upsetting. You can outlaw saying anything to a person of another race in case it’s misinterpreted. You end up with really stupid laws like the ones they try to push (and sometimes succeed) that say speech is sexual harassment if the person it is said to PERCEIVES it as such. Now you have to be a mind reader or just shut up completely (remember, if you make a comment to someone of the same sex, it can be sexual harassment too and so can comments to children). Result: Only the people in charge get to decide what you can say. Which is “no saying there is not climate change because you know it isn’t true and you are upsetting people”. Full circle and hung by the concept of no speech that may offend.
20
Thanks Sheri
It now seems that we are pretty much in complete agreement.
KK
10
Here’s Professor Parncutt’s comment
“At the end of that process, some GW deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed”
and his explanation of that comment
“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.
Here’s a comment from Adolf Hitler
Nature is cruel; therefore we are also entitled to be cruel. When I send the flower of German youth into the steel hail of the next war without feeling the slightest regret over the precious German blood that is being spilled, should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?”
You will notice that Herr Hitler like Professor Parncutt, isn’t directly suggesting he is going to eliminate millions of an inferior race but is asking if he should not have the right to. In effect he is presenting a logical argument just as Professor Parncutt also claims he is doing.
The whole world knows the consequences of that particular bit of ‘Free speech” from Herr Hitler.
40
John Cock!
Doesnt “Getup” stand straight or firm for any reasons unless manpilaulativ measures have been taken place . I wonder if he apologize to his girlfriend, boyfriend or anyone when he disappoints them or hurt them. He doesent seem to be able to perform and interact or whats suitable to say to the opposit ……………. ional views.
60
You’ve seen it Jo. What the skepticalscience admit to, behind the scences, they cannot bring themselves to say upfront. The story of the ‘climate change’ movement.
90
What a sweet day for Dah Skeptics!
Dah Monckster OWNED Dah Parncutter!!!
80
Parncutt was clear that he is opposed to the death penalty. We all go through vexing questions, mostly when young, and some, when older. Examples of those gripped by religious fervour in the climate debate and driven to the edge? Craven, Gleick, Armstrong (Franny), and ….Parncutt?
Each one of these are people who were unable to reconcile the urgency, colossal magnitude and the severity of the ‘climate threat’, and the cool calm of everyday life, their own and of those around them. ‘How can I see the looming tragedy approach, and simply go about my business?’ So their passion finds expression. Do we punish them? No.
In each of the above cases (excepting Craven of course, who actually did nothing, but falls in the same category because he looks at the climate issue through the prism of Pascal’s wager), one needs
-clear statements that quantify and crystallize what is otherwise percieved only as a vague threat: “300,000 people die every year due to climate change” etc
-clear lists that specify individuals responsible for ‘inaction’: desmock
-clear arguments (laid out in helpful lists) that bring clarity, and certainty to clouded, murky, uncertain issues: skepticalscience
In each of the above cases, one is helped by these elements to ‘cross the line’ into the realm where restraints act no more. Regular people read climate crap everyday in their newspapers and TV, just ignore it and go their way. If you put ten such people in a locked room and force them to ‘confront’ the ‘fact’ that climate change is killing hundresd of thousands every year, and commit to a stand, how many do you think would flip? What if your own mind is such a pressure-cooker?
So yes, skepticalscience may not admit it (evidently their collective decision-making paralyses their individual moralities), this is end-result of their contribution of adding false certainty and closure to issues that otherwise remain alive, scientifically or otherwise.
28
All well and good. First show me the science.
Show me evidence of one single human fatality in the world that can be directly linked to man made CO2 global warming as opposed to natural warming.
Then I will show you evidence of many people who have already died due to fuel and food poverty as a detect result of criminally irresponsible “action” on climate change.
What you are proposing is to lock people in a room and ram environmentalist propaganda crap down their throat.
130
Locking people in a room and propagandizing them in a peer pressure environment which fosters group thinking and mass consensus reality trance.
Take note people. It’s no longer concentration camp, it’s “re-education camp”.
90
Sonny, you and the thumbs-downers have misinterpreted what the good Shub is saying. He is saying that SkS is irresponsible for misleading impressionable and uninformed Gaia religionists, and so must bear some of the blame for extreme reactions such as Parncutt’s.
41
Many thanks Jo.
The amazing thing is that this spells out where they draw the line. This says HOW BAD an alarmist commment is allowed to be before it is considered – perhaps – a little less than just slightly tasteless.
Except by Smogblog et al, of course.
Happy New Year to us all. My resolution this year is to give up voting for redheaded socialist fraudsters, and I hope the people in Australia follow suit. Spread the word people!
Cheers,
Speedy
101
I think his Lordship is too much the gentleman. His “unless ” option is a mistake. There should never even have been an opportunity for Parncutt to retract or …ahem…apologise (just what kind of apology issufficient for a death threat).
Indeed, I think this entire debate has been a mistake. BEFORE this debate occured, those who first found Parncutts death threats should have went to the Austrian authorities FIRST! The Austrians came down swiftly on David Irving. Imagine the headlines as the usual idiots tried to make it seem Parncutt was being persecuted for being an alarmist. The publicity would have got some attention to this debate and our breath wouldnt be wasted talking to each other about it.
At least in UK where I live incitement to murder is a very serious offence. The part where he spokeof a “hypothetical” heroine murdering someone would be in the assesment of many such an incitement to murder. Can we really not have something done about this more than merely expressing our outrage?
40
Riigghtt. And one day when you find yourself in a society akin to that of the 1930s Germany where the laws are made by people sympathetic to the likes of this musician, what will you do, shout out your outrage?
Try it, it worked well for the jews.
43
If you had read below you would have see the pertinent disclaimer.
11
Do you mean your comment #37 at 12:06am?
My comment was posted at 12:03 am. I’m sorry I couldn’t see 3 minutes into the future.
It took you 19 ‘hasty’ minutes to add a disclaimer. Might I suggest you think through your disclaimers before hitting the “Post Comment” button on your original comment.
21
The media would not touch this with a ten foot thermometer.
That would break the cardinal rule:
“Thou shalt not embarrass or cast doubt upon thy climate brethren”
70
But thats the beauty of it…if Parncutt is subjected to a criminal investigation the media would WANT to report it because they would try to make it look like he is the victim.
50
I should hastily add, I do not necessarily agree with such laws and I would NOT want Parncutt to go to prison but acriminal investigation would focus the spotlight of attention very effctively I suspect.
61
See look how civilized skeptics are? Blood thirsty barbarians call for our systematic murder and we don’t even want to throw the poor sods in prison?
90
I don’t know Sonny, I’ve seen plenty of “skeptics” suggest that legal action be taken against climate scientists (or “the perpetrators of the scam”, as they are more usually referred to). And its an interesting point. If climate scientists are deliberately falsifying their work, that is, deliberately saying things that they know aren’t true, should they face legal action?
There are laws about fraud, but they apply if you seek to get money by lying. What if the climate scientists are so certain that the world needs saving that they were tempted to falsify data that might weaken their position? Is that a crime? Is it a crime if “skeptics” deliberately say things that they know not to be true, because they are fighting the good fight against a green totalitarian one world government?
Anyway, rest assured, we AGW nutters won’t be coming to murder you “skeptics” in your beds. And if anyone proposes legislation that would imprison anyone for holding heretical views on AGW, I will most strongly oppose it (as I’m sure would John Cook).
216
Really?? Well that my next holiday plans down the drain then…… :{
110
The thought of you two anywhere near my bed is petrifying lol.
100
Proof, please, that any skeptic deliberately says things which are not true, concerning climate.
Yes, I know you didn’t ‘say’ it. Sort of like you didn’t ‘say’ that skeptics are akin to pedophiles.
But I’d still be curious to hear what you were Suggesting.
100
Well, lets take just one. You know how the annual minimum arctic sea ice level is declining? Well, someone on the “skeptic” side (I think it was his lordship, but I can’t remember) managed to find one month (April?) where the extent of arctic sea ice was as high recently as it was 30 years ago. So he takes these two data points from the available 360 data points, and says that arctic sea ice is doing just fine. And it isn’t. And he knew it wasn’t. But he said it anyway.
Is that the sort of thing you were after, Otter?
10
Perhaps, John, you can enlighten me as to who we are to believe when there are hundreds of reports ranging from no change in the arctic ice outside of the “average” seasonal change to “WE’RE ALL GOING DIE” melting. I am constantly bewildered by the idiocy of a science to say arctic ice is/is not melting when we have decades of satellite images. Of course, when one alters colors, lies about the season, redates the photos, refuses to include photos, etc. confusion is bound to occur. Why is it there is not a series of color-matched, satellite images from the last 30 years (or whatever we have) showing the artic ice in each of the 12 months of the years. Twelve images per year, for however many years. All from the same satellite angle. Then EVERYONE could clearly see if the ice is or is not melting.
At that point, I expect if there is no evidence of melting, the claim will change to “it’s melting underneath” so this will not solve the climate change debate itself, just the ice melting part.
This whole discussion is often ludicrous. Either sea levels go up or they don’t. Ice melts or it does not. So, can anyone show me data that is not adulterated so I can actually see what is happening and not have to trust “the climate guy who is now God and all-knowing” or the skeptic who still uses the statistics rather than raw data. Until we get raw data with NO corrections, I trust no one.
01
Once again, Brookes doesnt think clearly. Proponents of either position can say anything they like whether they do so knowing it to be true or false. But anyone who falsifies research data is indeed liable to prosecution for fraud, its a totally distinct situation, especially when the research is publicly funded.
140
eg:
Hwan woo-Suk.
Heres another:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/11/us-science-fraud-idUSBRE84A0O820120511
60
I can’t see the distinction. If you falsify your research data, then you are saying something knowing it to be false. But you said that this is ok. So you are saying that some falsehoods are ok, but others are not?
00
People can say anything they want. They can lie if they want. They can also be prosecuted and jailed for the fraud. There is a difference between lies and the legal definition of fraud. (Lying is morally wrong, just not legally wrong in many cases.)
How it works:
Each scientist announces the world is flat and produces satellite photos to prove it.
A. Fred is not playing with a full deck and is just trying to gather followers to help him prove what he believes is right. No fraud, no crime.
B. Eric has a $200,000 grant and declares his research shows the world is flat. This constitutes fraud–Eric did not spend his grant on science. Why he reached this conclusion is unknown.
C. Mary has a $200,000 grant and declares the world is flat. Mary’s husband has a company that sells survival supplies and will benefit if people are convinced the government is lying to them about the shape of the earth. Fraud.
Hope that helps.
00
Your “scientists” are basically towing the line for their wages or grant funding. Science can be not a financially attractive career unless they can get on a gravy train. Truth comes a distant second.
71
I’m not sure if you’re a scientist or not but I suspect that you are not from your comments “What if the climate scientists are so certain that the world needs saving that they were tempted to falsify data that might weaken their position? Is that a crime?” I understand these comments are made to make a point but any scientist who falsifies data has committed a crime, maybe not a crime that would attract a judicial sentence but certainly a crime against science. I am a scientist and have never and would never contemplate falsifying data. Not because I couldn’t but because personally it is absolute anathema. Similarly, the preposterous comment that “The science is settled” would never be accepted by a true scientist as one never knows what the continuing advancement advances in science will reveal. Sure I expect you could say well the fact that the earth orbits the sun shows that that science is settled. Well is it science or the correct realisation of a physical fact in contrast to acceptance of the religiously based decree that the sun orbits the earth? Possibly that analogy or something similar may well be used when the history is written on the current discussions of CAGW
60
Or dismiss them from their employment, or defame them or threaten them with violence. Such a short list of outrage. You really are an ordinary human being.
00
@Jo “Your baseless ad hom about Monckton is an unfortunate detractor”
I believe the ad-hom referred to came from the Dana email and not from Tom’s post.
40
Its not baseless.
113
What isn’t, the ad hom or something else ?
70
Actually never mind, I read your other posts…
My intention was to point out that Tom (whoever he is, I’m not a regular visitor here) didn’t make the attack on Monkton, that was in the email.
“Dana…” didn’t need to include that and if he hadn’t then the email would have been stronger in my view.
Anthony Watts is also “at fault” for not posting the text of it fully (IMHO) but maybe he thought it was private – but then again why should be mention it at all if that was the case ?
Own goal on both sides. I won’t comment on it any more, waste of time.
Next.
24
I think I’m going to get a T-shirt printed that says:
“I survived Dah Parncutters Scepticide threat 2012”
On the back in small type…
“proudly not-sponsored by the Graz society of chartered systemic musicologists – putting the terrible in treble.”
100
Gnome: Free speech has its limits, as in the proverbial right to cry “fire” in a crowded theater. IMO, inciting to violence, even indirectly (“should be put to death”), crosses the line.
CAGC: The Piltdown Man of modern “science”.
40
Do Parncutt and Lewandowsky know one another? Psychologists with strange ideas who seem to be strongly influenced by SkepticalScience, etc., etc.
81
My personal email to Professor Parncutt:
Sorry, I keep remembering old sayings that we’ve abandoned. Sayings that taught wisdom — like, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Interesting concept, that!
140
There is an issue of freedom of speech which was raised in the case of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. In 2010 a criminal complaint was filed against her under Austrian law, for remarks the authorities considered to be “hate speech” which she had made about a religion. When the case came to court a second charge was added for “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion.”
She was convicted of the second charge and her appeal to a higher court failed.
What Parncutt wrote was, in my opinion, far worse. As well as his proposal for the mass extermination of people whom his “jury” of selected scientists decided should be killed for having views which differed from the views of the scientists on the jury, Parncutt also wrote:
“I have proposed the Pope and perhaps some of his closest advisers should be sentenced to death. I am talking about the current Pope…..”
Austria is a predominantly Roman Catholic country. Of its population of about 8.4 million, nearly 70% are catholics. Parncutt has, in the most public way possible called for the execution of their spiritual leader.
Many people oppose Austria’s incitement laws (Volksverhetzung) on the grounds of freedom of speech and support Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. But there are obviously very good historical reasons for Austria having laws designed to prevent hatred and violence against particular groups and people.
Article 283 of the Austrian Penal Code was amended in January this year.
The main amendments consist of:
1. The inclusion of all protected grounds in the definition of incitement to
hatred. Before it had been limited to race and religion. The list of
grounds now includes: race, colour, language, religion or belief,
citizenship, descent or national or ethnic origin, gender, disability, age,
or sexual orientation.
2. Whereas the old version required an act of incitement which was
“public and adequate to imperil public order” the new version added
“or noticeable to the public at large [breite Öffentlichkeit]”.
3. The broadening of the scope in the sense that not only groups are
protected but also individuals who are characterised by their affiliation
with a certain group defined by protected grounds.
http://www.non-discrimination.net/content/media/AT-17-amendment%20to%20Penal%20Code%20re%20incitement.pdf
70
The problem is always where to draw the line, isn’t it? Laws are either beneficial or terrifying, depending sometimes on the interpretation of only a word or two.
I understand Austria’s desire to prevent its past from popping up again (Germany also). But better the law is too narrow than too broad. Remember, your words may someday offend someone. What then?
The courts are not the best corrective measure for every offense nor are they the best arbiter of every dispute.
30
Roy, I’m inclined to agree with you.
Parncutt has acted in a stupid and irresponsible way but with the help of the university he has been made to retract and made his apology. Perhaps that should be an end of the matter, as suggested by Viscount Monckton, as far as the law is concerned. What the university do about such a man teaching their students is up to them but I would not allow my children to be taught by Parncutt.
50
Thanks mfo
good piece
KK
10
The global warming alarmists are becoming evermore desperate so in a way I can understand – but not approve – wild irresponsible statements. Supporters of a theory generally only check the facts that they use to support their contention. Those who reject a theory check both the facts that appear to support the theory and also those that contest it. Hence alarmists are generally less informed that skeptics.
101
Prof Parncutt’s solution might not be over.
Suppose the Prof supports abortion (while opposing the death penalty – which is a logical impossibility). If he can deduce some relationship between musical appreciation and skepticism then he may be able to determine ante-natally who is destined to become a skeptic. All he needs to do is find a jurisdiction where abortion is legal and he’s able to eliminate dissent.
41
It is evident that Parncutt has done the alarmist cause great harm not so much because he seems to some to have Nazism’s solution to opposition but rather that he is barking mad. That is the soft underbelly of the alarmist movement. James Hansen, though he may have scientific credentials is also on record as having a similar response to CACC skeptics.
This has little in both cases to do with the science but everything to do with what is essentially their Pagan world view motivation. That as has been noted here many times is the great danger to the almost 7 billion of us (and increasing) who no longer could survive in the primitive world proposed by those who are essentially out of touch with that reality.
70
The thing that gets me is the fact that there is no way that this is going to get any amount of airtime in the lamestream media.
And we all know if an even more milder threat was going the other way my taxpayer funded state TV propaganda bureau would be all over it like white on rice.
And it is that fact that actually pisses me off the most. In fact it makes me very very angry. There’s nothing like the feeling your government is hellbent on manipulating the facts and filters the information to oppress you and your children.
Of course, it’s really pathetic that it’s being done for purely ideological and political reasons.
60
Maddy, maybe you should get some perspective. It was a comment by a loony at a foreign university. Why on earth would the media here care??
02
Well well well, keep on spinning there catamon.
You know as well as anyone else that if this product of the australian academic system had been speaking as a sceptic that the ABC and others would be all over it.
Stop being so completely disingenuous.
31
I have to say, as a libertarian I actually support Parncutt’s – indeed, anyone’s – right to speak their opinion on who should be allowed to live or die. Equally, I – like everyone else – have the right to dismiss said opinion as utter rot, if I so wish.
In this case I think his comments fell well short of “inciting murder” as an earlier commenter suggested. But EVEN IF HE WAS INCITING SUCH ACTS – I actually have no problem with that either!
“WHAT?!” I hear you gasp. But think about it. To make a crime out of “incitement” or so-called “hate speech” somehow partially absolves those who act on such incitement, like they were so overcome with incitement that they could no longer be held responsible for their actions. Come on, it’s pathetic. As free and responsible adults we surely have the capacity and self-responsibility to reject such incitement to commit immoral acts. No one ever died simply because someone uttered the words “I think he should be killed.” But plenty have died because someone took it upon themselves to *act* on such a suggestion. The crime should be the act, not the suggestion.
Yeah, I know I’m in a minority here, but would fellow libertarians just try on the mindset for a little while, and see how it fits with our general libertarian principles of freedom of thought and expression? We’ve become so conditioned of late to believe that free speech has its limits (that which incites hatred, for example) that we forget that to hate or to verbalise hatred is just as much a natural right as to express love and respect.
So let’s each take personal responsibility for rejecting ideas we do not agree with, rather than allowing Big Government to turn us into weak little kittens that need shielding from mere words. Again: words alone do not kill; acts do. Outlaw the act, not the word.
37
Basically, those sort of comments belong on some sort of neo-cagw site, such as SkS, Desmog, etc. Put the comments where they belong.
He was very stupid to publish them on his University web site and the University has done the right thing and got his moronic comments removed. I hope they go further and remove the person as well, but that is up to the University. Certainly we will be put under “stupid” watch, to make sure he doesn’t do any more damage to the University’s reputation.
111
I should clarify that I support entirely Lord Monckton’s original request for Parncutt to withdraw his hateful – and ignorant – comments. But the basis for this should be purely intellectual rather than falling back on such Leftist tactics as accusing someone of a “hate crime.” As I indicated in my main comment: I reject the idea that to hate, or to express hatred, or to incite hatred, can be a crime.
To quote Evelyn Beatrice Hall as she illustrated Voltair’s principle of free speech: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
52
David I agree that in Parncutt’s case, using the law would be a very large hammer for a very small nut. But I seriously doubt you would have no problem with it if you were threatened as Salmon Rushdie was.
81
Ooops, he’s not a fish. It should be Salman.
50
@ mfo: In one case an order or command (fatwa) was actually passed that a person should be killed. A command is not merely a passive expression, it is an act, which means those that passed the fatwa would be just as guilty of murder as those who pulled the trigger. As I said: the act should be the crime, and that includes passing the order.
In the other case a person simply expressed a desire for a group of people to be subject to a death penalty. Yes, it was stupid, thoughtless and based on ignorance and prejudice. A so-called “hate crime.” The very term sounds like something out of 1984. Hardly the same is it?
31
I also take a libertarian view on this – but I also take the view that whilst he has every right to say it, we have equally as much right to criticise and ridicule him in the strongest possible terms.
The problem seems to be that most who espouse the views parncutt have an extreme will to silence views to the contrary – in fact his peice itself was a direct threat telling myself and others to shut the f*(k up or else.
40
I completely agree, and that’s pretty much a restatement of my original comment. I thought that was a no-brainer, but seven people (at this time) have given my original comment the thumbs down. Not too surprising but still a little disappointing. Having said that, I’m open to opposing arguments, but when it comes to defending individual freedom – that which doesn’t infringe on the freedom of others – I’m pretty rigid. Hey ho!
20
Once again, I find myself bizarrely defending someone (Parncutt) who’s views I abhor, and who ironically probably wouldn’t even understand the principles that drive me to defend his right to free speech. He’s certainly proved that he wouldn’t do the same for me. But that’s why Libertarian principles are superior – they are guided by a moral compass, and applied universally, not selectively.
So I ask sincerely: please provide a quote where he made a “direct threat.”
10
It doesn’t take a direct threat to make it offensive or inciteful.
.
He thought he was being clever by couching it as ‘theoretical, but the mistake he made was in making it directed and personal by naming individuals as examples of who his ‘theory’ should be applied to.
The personal offence was palpable, though it wasn’t out of any sense of decency that he recanted, but by being threatened with the criminal code – as it stands today – and the ire of his employer who he has disgraced by his act.
30
Jo, off topic, but headline stuff when the Melbourne Age newspaper publishes an opinion piece from the perspective of sceptics without any associated criticism – better weather ahead for sceptics in 2013? It will be interesting to watch for the responses from warmist believers no doubt wanting to ban this type of article as misleading and unacceptable. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/sceptics-weather-the-storm-to-put-their-case-on-climate-20121228-2bz91.html
91
.
Robber,
This article is going to send Cubby livid with rage.
All the warmists will be out in force.
Good article – maybe The Age can see the writing on the wall finally.
90
I am literally gobsmacked. Speechless even (and that doesn’t happen often)
The Age!
Wow!
I’m about to go outside and hold the earth still for a moment.
20
This is a great article and ground breaking for the AGE. Here is a cartoonist who saw through the paucity of and “evidence” for DAGW which even a layman could evaluate as non-evidence.
Here is his argument for layman evaluation of the climate science that we have overlooked:
“We can say for certain that many hesitant individuals overcame the pressures of group-think, intimidation and tribal disapproval to have a closer look at the relationship between real science, politics and business.
I was once told by a friend that when it comes to scientific issues of major public concern, it is “not what you know but who you know”. I think he meant that my fledgling scepticism about dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) was pointless, for as a cartoonist I was as unqualified to assess the science as he was.
The implication was that all who are untrained in “climate science” are required to accept the scientific and political authority of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its local colleagues such as the CSIRO: the scientific establishment.
I found my friend’s advice baffling. Anyone familiar with the judicial process knows the gravest issues of liberty and fortune are often determined by a jury selected from the public. Expert witnesses can give evidence in support of either side at a trial. The judge must rule on questions of admissibility, but in the end it is the jury that decides which scientific evidence is to be believed.”
40
.
Love the new name of DAGW.
DAG Warming or DAG for short.
Brookes, Catamango, Nice Two, MattyZ, MaxedOUT etc all come under the same banner.
LOL: Dags – their belief, behaviour and coments all daggy!
Bye DAGS. 🙂
11
Wow! It must be exciting for you guys to see that in The Age. But what a piece of rubbish the article is.
Mr Spooner compares science to the legal system. You know, the system whereby the prosecution must *prove* the guilt of the accused. And yet, the accused will, whether they are guilty or innocent, go to the great expense of hiring a lawyer. The inference is that without a lawyer, the prosecution will be able to *prove* your guilt, but with a lawyer, the chances of them doing so are reduced. Why else pay the money? How does that make sense? You can either prove guilt or you can’t.
If you see science as being akin to the legal system, with lawyers trying to show that AGW isn’t *proved*, and a jury of “ordinary people” deciding whether the lawyers have succeeded or not, then we are in big trouble. Because nature isn’t going to abide by a jury decision.
17
But it bl##dy well better do what daH Monker says, or he’ll sue and his fanbois will chuck a wobbly,…..again. 🙂
17
Cat, you make John Brookes look like a Rhodes Scholar. 🙁
40
Sorry Roy, but not even Cat can do that !!
20
John,
You never cease to amaze me with your ability to miss the point. Of course it’s rubbish to you. Of course it is. It can’t be any other way with you.
It’s precisely,
that you’re wrong and Spooner is right. But you won’t ever admit that you are part of a large jury trying to decide the issue on a basis other than what nature has actually been doing.
Think about that, John. Think about it a while. 🙂
60
You miss the point. No one would seriously suggest that it would. However, before we spend further multiple trillions on a hypothesis, we sceptics generally like to apply some scrutiny, and expect evidence rather than the usual failed models, claims that “the debate is over” and childish name calling of anyone who doesn’t blindly accept the manufactured consensus.
We know that many on the alarmist side are morally bankrupt. We’ve all read of Mike’s Nature Trick, of childish Phil Jones’ refusal to share data with anyone who might find something wrong with it, of the conspiracies to get journal editors sacked. One of the currently amazing displays of dishonesty is the claim that the trend of the Sun’s output is what causes warming or cooling of the Earth, not the actual output itself. I’m sure we’re all familiar with the concept by now: the stupid idea that in order to heat a pan of water you have to keep turning up the heat. Jesus, who are these people trying to fool? So yes, some kind of “trial” of the evidence wouldn’t go amiss.
50
“If you see science as being akin to the legal system, with lawyers trying to show that AGW isn’t *proved*, and a jury of “ordinary people” deciding whether the lawyers have succeeded or not, then we are in big trouble. Because nature isn’t going to abide by a jury decision.”
Still hungover from Christmas JB or just incredibly stupid.?
If you put your brain in gear before assaulting the keyboard you may… just may (given it is an alarmist faith brain) have asked yourself the question: Is nature going to abide by a decision of a group… any group of scientists?
But you miss the point. No one, except you, has lawyers in view.
It is the evidence that matters and in DAGW the lawyers are replaced by pro and con scientists but the “lay jury” is still there. And a big and, lay persons, all of them, have hands on life experience of climate so it is not something esoteric with which they are unfamiliar.
Spooner’s question to reasonably intelligent readers is: Why can’t lay people make that judgement about climate science, when they are considered competent to make judgements about other scientific evidence?
Thus all Spooner is pointing to is the competence of lay persons to make a judgement about just another branch of science. A controversial science which has been in the public arena for decades.
Now JB not a quick answer please (do you have a peer reviewer close by) are you telling us that as a layman you are not equipped to make a judgement on Climate Science? So what on earth have you been doing here pontificating on something that a lay person such as yourself has no ability to make a judgement on?
20
Hi Llew
Just a small point.
You say that Climate Science is just another branch of science.
It really is an Engineering discipline given the vast number of unquantified interacting factors at work
that separate the two main factors from ever being related.
Relating world temperatures and CO2 levels is just a pipe dream that is useful to aid in tax collection.
KK 🙂
30
I’m a bit of a fan of professional engineers but many “scientists” these days are not far removed from the arty farties egs social “science” or say ecology, which has a bit of witchcraft added for good measure. I guess climate alarmism is still called science so I’ve stuck with that convention.
I’m a bit with you on the role of CO2. Perhaps the role of GH gases, in such a chaotic system, will need a bit of modification when we get a better picture of how Earth’s climate works.
It seems on the scanty evidence, so far, that our piddling little contribution of CO2 is insignificant and overwhelmed by the natural volumes of CO2 churning through the system.
30
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes “advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence” a punishable crime.
70
Here in Dublin, Ireland, I have been following the Prof Richard Parncutt debate to a very slight extent as my wife and I have been busy recovering from very busy Christmas celebrations with family and friends.
Consequently I may be repeating something which has been said here or elsewhere as I have not been able to read all the comments, so please excuse me if this is a repeat of someone else’s opinion.
It seems to me that Parncutt is rather an odd character to have writtem and posted the comments and threats about Viscount Monckton purely as his own opinion.
I wonder if Parncutt is simply repeating ideas he heard at the The University of Graz staff rooms where the more “scientific” staff have been indulging in open discussions over coffe breaks. And maybe his comments simply reflect the attitudes of both the University and the “scientific” staff. Even if they are just repeats of other’s opinions, there is still no excuse for them.
His career at The University of Graz should be terminated.
Whatever the truth is, the university itself is culpable enormously in this matter.
Suggestions by Parnutt are Hitlerite/Nazi at the very least.
Viscount Monckton should sue, sue sue everyone concerned.
PW 28 Dec 2012
91
Peter
There have been suggestions here that he is connected in some way to the University of Western Australia.
If that is the case, it would instantly explain his dogmatic ideas.
KK
80
Found. Julia Gillard’s ‘yoga’ teacher.
A further example of this ‘global warming’ mindset here*:
.
” You people need to learn a thing or two about Global Warming.
Everyday living is destructive to the Environment.
One of the most important ways people can help save the environment is to STOP HAVING BABIES.
Another very important thing you can do is to euthanize your pet.
Our company sells Carbon Credits which are the only hope of saving the planet.
For the sake of the planet, we need to act before it’s too late. ”
Please visit our company’s website for more information:
” GreenTremayne is a full service Carbon Credit retailer serving the residential and commercial market.
If you are interested in eliminating your personal or household Carbon Footprint, we can help! ”
.
But the ‘fun’ starts in the blogs section.
Seems like someone upset our eco-warrior:
7/15/12
WARNING! DO NOT READ BIODIESEL: A NOVEL BY GEORGE H. MONAHAN
I am so angry I could scream! I thought that the author of Biodiesel: A Novel was going to portray me in a positive light. Instead, he has done a hatchet job and his book makes me look like a complete idiot! All he does is poke fun at Environmentalism and mock our plan to save the planet by selling Carbon Credits.
I HATE HIM SO MUCH!
.
Now, we get serious:
8/7/12
EFFORTS TO SILENCE MONAHAN ARE NOT WORKING!
Our legal team at GreenTremayne informs me that until the government repeals the stupid First Amendment, banning Biodiesel: A Novel is going to be very difficult.
We are doing our best to inform the public that Monahan not only makes me out to be a fool, but generally ridicules the whole Environmentalist movement.
This is simply intolerable and must be stopped!
Our friends in the “Occupy” movement are trying to track him down and hopefully reeducate him.
Until they do, I’m afraid he’ll keep doing interviews about his stupid book on talk radio.
All he does is badmouth Carbon Credit marketing as a scam while taking pot-shots at what he calls the “Global Warming Hoax.”
We really need to silence this guy!
If anyone has information about his whereabouts, please email our Public Relations department and let us know. (my emphasis)
In the meantime, we’re relying on our fellow Environmentalists to spread the word that Biodiesel: A Novel really sucks and that George H. Monahan is a misogynist who hates Mother Earth.
No matter what you hear on talk radio, this book is not funny. Environmentalism must be treated with more respect and it’s just plain wrong that Biodiesel: A Novel makes a mockery of our cause.
.
I think I like George H. Monahan.
I suggest George watch his back in 2013.
* the original link with comment
100
Stop Press.
It is all a scam to sell the book.
I was conned.
60
Handjive
I am in stitches – followed your link and there are some other CLASSICS as well on their Product page.
“Carbon Credits (Out of Stock. On Backorder)
(SKU #869213)
Single unit residential Carbon Credit. Contact Customer Service for special bulk orders and pricing.
Price per Unit: On Backorder”
OR
“Baby Credits (On Backorder)
(SKU #212928)
Due to conditions in Liberia, Baby Credits are temporarily on backorder. Check back soon for availability and pricing.
Price per Unit: Market Price”
Honestly – I’m wetting myself – perhaps Johnny B can get over to the site quickly so he can be first in the queue when conditions in Liberia get back to normal – they even have special discounts for bulk orders – JB can buy
twothree or even more.Thanks for the laugh – how ANYONE with half a brain could think this will help prevent the effects of “catastrophic climate change” escapes my reasoning capability.
Cheers,
60
handjive,
Sadly, you aren’t the only one.
When I realized what was going on I spent some time having fun pushing the guy’s buttons every way I could to see the result. He kept up the sham for several days. I think he finally he grew tired of me and then admitted what the site is all about.
10
As I see it-
STAGE 1: Expect to overwhelm any scepticism by declaring-“the science is settled”. FAIL.
STAGE 2: Fight the sceptics on science & veracity of information. FAIL.
STAGE 3: Change the CAGW propaganda to the broader ‘Climate Change/Disruption’ meme. FAIL.
STAGE 4: Denigrate sceptics as barking mad. FAIL.
STAGE 5: Get the message started that sceptics deserve assassination. TBA.
80
STAGE 6: Close eyes, block ears, shout “nya nya nya” loudly, and you won’t notice the warming.
223
Johnny Boy, what warming? Another meaningless comment not backed up by any facts.
140
“STAGE 6: Close eyes, block ears, shout “nya nya nya” loudly”
Yes John, you have been stuck at stage 6 for a long long time.
180
Typical Warmist dishonesty, Brookes. Sceptics like Jo here have explained till they’re blue in the face that we’re not saying there hasn’t been any warming (whether it stopped 16 years ago or not).
We are saying that we do not accept the theory that humans are ninety-whatever percent likely to have caused most of the warming, that we do not agree with the amount of warming projected by the models (hell, history has already proven that much), and also disagree that what warming we do have is or will be catastrophic. NOW do you get it? Nah, you really don’t do you. If you did you wouldn’t be able to keep throwing childish denier-type insults our way.
So, you close your eyes, block your ears, shout “nya nya nya” loudly, and you won’t notice where the actual debate is.
60
David, if only your position was so simple. But trust me, those on your side of the fence generally deny everything.
04
…… Which is not noticed because there HAS NOT BEEN ANY for 16 years! …. Despite increases in CO2 by approx 10%.
Stage 7: John Brookes admits AGW models are completely inadequate, apologises for the misleading and deceptive ‘science’ and offers his resignation from his taxpayer paid job.
121
Ha ha.
311
Nervous laugh there Johnny Boy?
160
Very very nervous.
30
Thanks M’Lord for your eloquent and enlightened intervention!
82
Tug on forelock…
47
I’m sure the Good Lord would take that in the spirit it was intended JB.
30
That law was put there for a good reason, which is precisely what Monckton used it for. However, Monckton’s good grace in letting the personal insult rest on the withdrawal and apology, doesn’t actually address the criminal offence which has been committed.
It is not up to Monckton to be doing the prosecuting authorities job for them, but if they don’t pursue it anyway then they might expect it not to be taken seriously.
70
O/T,
At An airport this afternoon, there was an HSBC advert saying that all “future fuels will be organic”.
How the Frig can oil not be organic?
How dumb does the HSBC think their potential customers are?
60
.
MJ
In Science20 they say “Fossil fuels even more organic than current fossil fuels.”
Worst science site I’ve seen.
The spin doesn’t stop.
60
How dumb? Dumb enough, apparently.
10
if it is abiotic. Louis Hissink should be along soon to explain.
04
Explain what ?
10
I thought you were Mr Abiotic Oil? Or have I confused you with another? So I thought you may have an answer for “How the Frig can oil not be organic?”… Or would abiotic still be organic just based on definitions of chemistry re organic?
01
Obviously I am not Louis, but abiotic oil does contain organic compounds. Mirriam Webster defines organic as: of, relating to, or containing carbon compounds. Abiotic oil is organic if you use the dictionary definition.
10
If you mean this one, In the future, we will all fly organic, then I think they may mean.
We’ll have to get high on Mushrooms ,
because flying will be reserved for the Global Elite, flying around between Conferences on how to make us behave and serve them better.
70
Yes, that’s the one – I think their marketing department must’ve had some magic mushrooms
40
Isn’t it funny how ‘organic’ is so in vogue with all the enviro.s as far as shopping and what they eat is concerned, yet if it involves organic fuel to produce it , to deliver it or even to cook it, then it’s somehow not so ‘organic’ .
I think that HSBC may be using ‘organic’ in its warm and cuddly sense, to mean anything but organic in the scientific sense. But then it has never been about the science and HSBC are just cynically exploiting the perceived naivety of their audience.
60
Haha,
wikipedia – the alarmists oracle of truth:
LOL – talk about spin!
OK, news flash for all you people out there who hyppocritically type on your oil based plastic keys railing against the evils of oil:
OIL IS ORGANIC. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find something less organic than Oil.
Oh, and by the way – that Prius you’re driving – it’s most likely to be coal powered, Hydro dam powered or Nuke powered, btw!
70
Perhaps we need to explain the word “ORGANIC” to the world.
From all the possible definitions it’s easy to see that precision in terminology counts. Which definition of the word you think you’re using makes a big difference. Only one of them deals with the chemical composition of something. And that’s the one most of the world will be least likely to have in mind — and the one most of us will have in mind.
Instant disconnect!
30
It’s a bit like the word “warms”… 😮
Does “subject warmed object” mean the object increased in temperature, or does it mean the subject made a net transfer of energy to the object?
Of course in plain English the correct answer is Yes. :s It depends on how cantankerous and autistic one wishes to be.
The misunderstanding can lead to endless circles of inanity.
There are two different directions of heat (incoming & outgoing) which can change to cause a temperature increase, thus the confusion between assigning the meaning based on the mechanism versus assigning the meaning based on end result. The only meaning to “warms” that is consistent across all present usage is that “subject warms object” means “subject raised the temperature of object” (independent of mechanism).
We should not waste time fighting over the assigned meaning of a symbol.
20
.
Minus 0.5 degrees C in Uni of Graz at 7.04pm 29/12/2012.
40
They must be closed for the holidays. I hope they’ve got enough antifreeze in the radiators and drained the pipes .
60
Everybody wandering off topic again…
20
What Parncutt expressed, was an opinion. ‘We’ do not prosecute people for their opinions. Being the stupid opinion that it is, it appears not to have the capacity to withstand open scrutiny, nor persuade newcomers or bystanders. The price, if anyone has an inkling of making him pay, is that he has to reconsider. The best form of insurance against such ideas is the open forum which exposes them to scrutiny and debate. You stand, ironically, to lose the very thing if you pursue punitive action against the man who has the ideas.
The climate activist trash chase intimidation, censorship and skulduggery, because their ideas are weak and cannot stand on legs of their own. It is they who need meeting head-on. Not those influenced by them.
70
You are wrong. He did more than express an “opinion”. He advocated the exemplary execution of dissenters from the CAGW theory. In my opinion the Sydney Swans will go back to back and win the flag next season. But if you disagree with me I will shoot you in the head. Get the difference?
20
For what it’s worth, I’m with “David UK“, Madjak, and Geoff Sherrington on this one.
My 2 cents…
If you intimidate or legislate people into refraining from expressing particular ideas, you won’t know what they believe until they act on it and by then it is too late to change their mind.
A conversation could save a life.
How he arrives at such conclusions is important for debugging society. His conclusions may be internally logical but still wrong because they begin with false assumptions. What if this Parncutt fellow is just another misguided creature who read a few things on SkepticalScience and totally fell for their biased propaganda. There must be thousands like him we’ve never heard about.
Misappropriating Rage Against The Machine…
120
I read an American blogger today writing on this subject. The difference in reactions between this person and many of the readers of this blog is black and white. Instead of being angry and insulted, this person just shrugged it off. How sad that this causes so much anger and hatred in Australia……
14
Was he on the CAGW hit list?
30
I don’t think its really affecting the national happiness index here by much Sheri. Its only upsetting a small subset of the population that seems to exist in a semi permanent state of outrage and indignation anyway regardless of what’s happening in the world.
Me, i have real problems. Only 1/2 a tray of those yummy mangoes left. 🙁
10
Sheri said:
This is from – wait for it – American Thinker:
So stop trying to make this a country thing; it’s ad hominem rubbish.
The guy has apparently apologised and I think we should accept that. What is keeping the thing going is the annoying spin, spin that would seemingly make his apology undue. If you want the anger (actually annoyance) to stop, you stop.
00
So find me an Australian blogger who found this amusing.
00
Sheri said:
So while I was endeavouring to illustrate similarity, you are still trying to make this an Australia versus America thing.
Your replies are becoming more and more bizarre, Sheri. Vague hearsay about one unidentified American blogger, offering the philosophical gem, “Who cares?”, does not provide us a sensible statistical measure upon which to determine the superiority of your heritage.
While we are here, we might as well present another transatlantic blogger who, like us here, has issues with Parcutt’s former ideas. From WUWT:
Why don’t you go there and explain to them your culturally gratifying study in moral superiority?
00
Not a problem–I follow said blog. Wait, I probably already did comment, though not as Sheri (there’s that pesky WordPress login and user name thing…..). Did comment on a Canadian blog–does that count? No got upset–should I try again?
Still waiting for the Australian blogger name.
PS I am still fascinated by the idea that any questioning or comparing of ANYTHNG (culture, science, race, country) is always done to asset moral superiority. Actually, that makes a more fascinating study–how to shut down all discourse by claiming any statement is an insult or slight. No one can ever learn anything for fear of hurting someone’s feelings. I found climate science was one of the most effective users–if you’re not for them you are against them. Seems that is true of many, many more things than I had originally included. I have learned that any attempt to compare countries may be interpreted as evil and condescending so one should really live with the fantasy in their head and not learn anything about the real world lest someone’s feelings get hurt. Sadly, I can’t really do that so I guess feelings will get hurt.
00
I checked. On Dec. 28, 2012 poster Baa Humbug basically stated my position. I thought it sufficient to allow his post to cover this. If you would feel better, I can go chime in with Baa Humbug.
I did not comment on American Thinker, but again, if you would feel better if I did, I certainly can.
00
Sheri said:
And while you were there, did you happen to notice that WUWT had issues too? Did you tell them how, despite what they were saying, that Americans react differently to Australians, because you found ONE American blogger somewhere who wrote to say he didn’t have issues (why write at all?). It’s beautiful how, to have a shot at Australia, you ignore all the similar reactions from America and present as evidence, ONE unquoted unidentified blogger, as a comparison to show Australia’s hate.
My suggestion was not regarding your views on Parncutt’s comments, rather it was on your telling us that Americans react differently to us hate-filled Australians. THAT is what I suggested you bounce off WUWT.
Unlike you with the US one, you mean? Your demand is idiotic. For a start, the population of America is roughly 15 times that of Australia. If all else is equal, and with rigid proportionality (which doesn’t work with small samples), one should expect to find 1/15 of a blogger with a dismissive (and redundant) article on Parncutt.
I get irritated with ANY absurdity, especially when it’s gratuitous.
10
This is my final response: http://examiningscience.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/skepticwarmist-who-can-tell-from-their-behaviour/
You may hold your breath, turn blue whatever you want. Your objections are tedious. I was comparing two cultures. I do not take offense if people insult America or discuss it. Obviously, you can’t get that so this is pointless.
00
Your link does not address my actual criticism and I can’t get what you haven’t provided. You have not answered either of my two main points regarding the ridiculous statistical method you used to make your comparison of Americans and Australians – citing one blogger of whom you approve. That one unidentified and unquoted example was brandished while ignoring of all the others who hold the same view as presented in Jo’s article.
You seem to see yourself as scientific, Sheri, but here you display the sort of cherry-picking-thinking that would do Michael Mann and his bristlecone pine proud.
10
I am giving up on responding to discussions on any type of violence. There are too many words that land comments in moderation for a real discussion to occur. If there is another forum on which this can be discussed, okay.
10
Sheri,
I hope you won’t. I’ll miss your thoughtful, well considered opinions and comments if you do. We need the levelheaded people participating.
Just my opinion for what it’s worth.
50
They missed the chance simply because they do not want honest, open debate: their scientific position is weak and they would lose under such conditions.
40
Well played Lord Monckton.
40
The interesting thing is, despite all he has ever said about what should be done to discourage various culpable scientists, politicians, and other opportunists who have acted fraudulently in promoting this AGW scare, Monckton has never mentioned nor even vaguely implied a death penalty.
.
Whereas we see Warmist thought leaders referring to it, however obliquely, quite regularly.
.
If human life cannot be valued at the level of the individual, what value are all these vague notions of saving the planet for human kind really worth ?
90
The Monck has no peers when miscreants are faced with his concise and precisely worded statements of fact.
He truly amazes me how he maintains his calm disposition in the face of outrageous attacks; unquestionably, a superior mind will win all the time whereas my patience over the ‘climate doomsayers’ lies and deceits snapped ages ago.
51
Viscount Monckton 1, advocates of violent suppression of science, 0
00
Behind most threats is usually an attempt to coerce a person or group, by psychological pressure, into doing something they don’t wish to do or refrain from doing something they have every right to do. The threat is designed to instil fear in people and to make them believe that they or those close to them may suffer harm if they do not comply.
Threats and intimidation come in many forms. Rushdie was threatened because of the words of a religious leader. A jury member or a witness may be intimidated by being stared at or followed. A restaurant owner may be visited by someone offering protection against non-existant threats. Children frequently recieve threatening and abusive text messages. Such abuse sometimes leads to suicide.
Someone may write an article promoting the killing of certain people, knowing full well that there are disturbed people who may act on those words and that the “targets” may suffer psychological harm. Their intention is clearly to bully the victims into compliance.
In the case of Parncutt we know that his threat was subtle and indirect. The intention was to coerce people into refraining from expressing opinions about climate science with which he does not agree. It is intimidating because he proposes that people who do not do as he wishes should be killed.
The fact that he framed his threat in a cosy academic context and phrased it in the form of pseudo-legal proposals of what should be done to people who do not act as he wishes them to, simply makes the intimidation subtle but no less chilling to the people to whom his words were directed. His intention is clear, it is to instil in a group of people the fear of violence and death.
Most people would agree that they should be allowed to speak freely about anything they choose and in general I would support that. But those who have been the victims of threats, coercion, intimidation and bullying, even when it is just words on the internet or an email, are victims of a particularly nasty and dangerous kind of behavior.
Technology has made both the subtle and blatant use of threats and harrassment very easy. If I have to choose between someone demanding the right to call for certain people to be killed and the right of the victims of such threats to be protected, I will always take the side of the victims of such intimidation who frequently endure great suffering as a result, even if only psychologically.
50
‘He has been invited to attend a disciplinary hearing after the New Year break’
http://austriantimes.at/news/Education/2012-12-29/46271/The_Pope_must_die_claim_on_Graz_Uni_website
50
Insulting directly a Knight of St. John (Monckton) and The Holy Father in the same piece, on an Austrian university’s website, while it might draw forbearance from them it won’t go down well in such a predominantly Catholic country as Austria.
Perhaps being an immigrant foreigner they’ll go easier on him, but I still cann’t see him getting off lightly.
40
Okay–let me make this clear. I am not being patronizing nor insulting with saying Australians would not be comfortable in America. I said it went both ways. The hurling of insults about the Second Amendment in this country would seem to bear this out. I am NOT saying one way is better than the other–Americans have their Second Amendment and Australians don’t seem to. It’s just the way we chose to run the country. Connolly is insulting me because he doesn’t like my countries laws–I am not insulting Australians because they have different laws. Americans have a more violent society, yes, but the Second Amendment is not the cause, or at least there is no empirical evidence to that effect. It is a complicated situation.
I do fully understand my countries laws on free speech. I know we do not have fully free speech. My comment was it seems more open than what is being described by Australians. Since I don’t live in Australia, I don’t know except by comments made here. There are limits to free speech and many of them make no sense while some do. No government works perfectly well and I certainly do not claim mine does. That is painfully obvious at this point. In the US, “death threats” are taken very differently. You may choose to believe this or not–I live here.
Connolly–he is not MY president. He is the idiot that over one-half the nation voted for. There is a difference. Again, I am not making nasty comments about what Australian government does. I was trying to understand a cultural difference.
mfo: The problem with the government “protecting” you is when they start protecting you from climate change and those kind of things. I am not a fan of what is called here “the nanny state”. Telling people only the government or police can save them from bad people seems cruel. It just victimizes them more by taking away their power. I know this is not a popular belief even in the US, but I am a big believer in teaching people to help themselves, not to call me and come save them. I believe people have strengths and they should be helped to use them, not told once again that they have no power. Telling people the government has to save them is telling them they lack the ability to protect themselves and makes them feel safe until the fantasy is broken by reality. The world is a dangerous place–that is reality. Trying to hide from it does not change that. Nor do laws or governments.
61
Sheri,
As an Australasian I completely concur with your comments. I am embarrassed that we have people representing this country who seem to be quite content pointing the finger at other countries domestic policies when here in australia there are much more seriously neglected areas within our country wich would do much better to receive some attention from the ignoramus’ we have in charge here.
20
Hi Sheri
I can understand why you have jumped down here to avoid the examples you give in the above post at:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/parncutt-death-threat-uni-of-graz-shocked-monckton-gets-it-withdrawn-with-apology-john-cook-says-nothing/#comment-1214778
You seem to be describing what might happen if someone gets excited about comments on science made by a
person who does not believe the CAGW hype.
Presumably the conversation and comment was only science, no hate speech or death threats.
Now in your example this excitable person goes out and kills an anti CAGW commentator.
I would speculate that the most likely reason for your “excitable person’ going off the rails was some prior
dubious “free speech” from someone in “authority” like Mr Parncutt.
I believe as I have indicated above, that a personal response to ignore Parncutt’s apparently vaguely targeted diatribe may be justified: if you are not on the list at desmogblog.
As a community I would think it wise to ask Herr Parncutt to at least explain himself and point out to him that his words are capable of inciting other less well controlled individuals to violence.
This is especially important as his words are likely to cause the limiting of other community members right s to move and talk unhindered about the science.
You also mention, “The Second Amendment, whatever that is.
I have no interest in Americas Laws and even less interest in changing them.
All I am trying to do is add some comment about the limits of free speech that are necessary and which apparently by enacting legislation many countries agree are necessary.
It’s a little bit trite to say that America has absolute free speech because you regularly see death threats
made to all sorts of people in the US media.
In my previous job in law enforcement I had a couple of death threats made against me.
The result was that no action was taken against the perpetrators of those threats.
A Similar but less aggressive death threat was made against our State Premier and the perpetrator was arrested and held for Psychiatric examination for two days before being fined and processed.
One law for the rich and influential and other for us also rans.
Sheri, we have problems in society and it is in the interest of all of us to fix them.
The biggest impediment to free speech at the moment is the hijacking of the media was influential pressure groups of all persuasions.
Fix that and you will be well on the road to having “free speech”.
It means stopping corruption in high places; any suggestions??
KK
10
I did not jump down here to avoid comments–I jumped down here because I got tired of looking for where previous comments were and this was easier.
30
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/parncutt-death-threat-uni-of-graz-shocked-monckton-gets-it-withdrawn-with-apology-john-cook-says-nothing/#comment-1215149
10
I just found out I can build a nuclear fusion reactor in my basement (garage actually, I have no basement) with parts off EBay! I have my credit card all dusted off and my mouse tuned up so I can start purchasing parts! I’d love to stay around and chat with y’all, but I have a big, exciting project to get on with. 🙂
30
Everyone this has been an interesting discussion and I have read all comments with great enthusiasm, for which I am truly thankful that we can talk in such a way. Let’s hope our respective governments allow us to continue.
I wish you all a very happy and prosperous New Year !!
40
Re Germany/Austria region, I’m getting more and more uneasy. There have been heavy police raids at Deutsche Bank, some at high level arrested, some tied in with carbon credit scams. The bank’s 2009 Annual report lists the Green Advisory Committee there. Many of the ten or so reople were big players when Climategate broke later (easy Google).
It was disturbing to read in a report comissioned by the German Government Environment Ministry that “After the global crisis of 1929, such a surge of investment in Europe as elsewhere was initiated by the perspective of military armament. (See ‘A new Growth path for Europe’, Jaeger at al, 2011. The tome has nearly 200 pages. It seems to have influenced Angela Merkel to go irrational. There are some nasty threats about power costs between countries now, and of course that silly scheme to carbon tax aircraft flting into Germany – close to aviation piracy.)
Just yesterday I saw http://www.oberonreview.com.au/story/1183624/deutsche-bank-chiefs-probed-over-carbon-trading/?cs=9
Rumblings in worrying directions. I did not write to Prof Parncutt because it could well have upset close friends whom I do not want upset. The affair will die away.
Old Aussie saying – You catch more ants with honey than with arsenic.
50
I see the word “freedom” used on this page 41 times so far. I see the word “responsibility” used only 5 times.
Does anyone think you can have one without the other?
Most of what this thread is about would never have been written if responsibility had been put before the right to say whatever you please.
60
yep.
40
Roy
“Does anyone think you can have one without the other?”
Pity you’re way down here with such a good coment.
Unfortunately I suspect your statistics say it all.
Doug
20
He is only apologizing because he has to…. Which is a form of censorship.
I am quite comfortable with his opinion. It’s refreshing actually, he expressed it freely and I welcome it. It is his true self exposed…. So I don’t give a shit about his apology. It is false, forced, coerced.
My response to him is, “Ditto, asshat.”
20
Indeed , he has achieved his objective, of drawing publicity to another odious, Green, NGO, would be thought leading, Eco-fascist think tank. Another hotbed of petty authoritarians with political ambitions of which we had not previously heard.
A quick look through the World Future Council ‘s website makes it clear where they are coming from, now that Parncutt has clarified who they are after.
While the Pope has a Swiss Guard to protect him, Monckton and others on the list have only the Law.
30
[…] Parncutt Death Threat: Uni of Graz “shocked”, Monckton gets it withdrawn with apology. John Cook… […]
00
“I see the word “freedom” used on this page 41 times so far. I see the word “responsibility” used only 5 times.
Does anyone think you can have one without the other?
Most of what this thread is about would never have been written if responsibility had been put before the right to say whatever you please.”
Generally, freedom vs responsibilities argument is normally presented by those who would rather that there were no freedom at all….I hope that isn’t the case here…:-)
I have mixed feelings about this, much as I relish the bedwetter fraternity being educated in the laws of unintended consequences, I have reservations about Lord Monkton’s success being down to waving an anti-free speech statute against an institute of learning. Firstly if all the climate hystericals actually thought about what they were writing and sought proper evidence, it would deprive us of hours of harmless amusement. Secondly the right to voice ideas that others consider stupid, is invaluable in terms of human progress. For example Dr Semmelweiss was considered not only stupid but actually insane for suggesting that Doctors might like to wash their hands in between cutting up corpses and sticking their fingers in a patient. I have no illusions that Parncutt is a modern Semmelweiss, but there is always the chance that he will evolve into a sentient lifeform at some future date….
00
The apology is no longer available publicly.
I suggest going forward with criminal complaints against the perpetrator and his conspirators in the University.
00
Dicky says his mea culpa and now we can all be friends?
I wonder if he’s still applying for the position of “denialist” prison camp guard?
Darnit i need some re-education.
00
Ive only just seen this as of 2nd Jan.
My first reaction (before reading other comments) is that of delight and approval. HOWEVER, sod giving these fascists a way out. I dont think the 14 days cop-out option was warranted or a good idea. If the basis for a criminal case were weak then it was an acceptable bluff. But if the basis for a complaint were sound, then it should have been made.
Do you suppose for one moment that if the situation were in reverse (not that its possible to imagine any sceptic advocating such acts, which are solely the province of true believers in whatever cause) that any of these fascists would be so accomodating?
His Lordship is genuinely a gentleman. Unfortunately, I dont think the Marquess of Queensberry rules apply when your life is threatened.
10
Of course, Monckton is but one person who rank among Parncuttes potential murder victims. Anyone in those shoes could STILL set the wheels of justice in motion.
10
[…] Jo Nova reports that Prof Richard Parncutt, who suggested that climate change sceptics could face the death penalty for their crime, has taken down the original text of his argument and has apologised. […]
00
Regarding the freedom of speech issue my personal position is this: I would prefer that indeed none of the discussed laws existed anywhere and that indeed anyone could say anything, including incitement to murder. BUT these laws do exist and are enforced. Therefore, if particular sections of society and unpopular belief (I am referring much more widely than to climate only) are not to be suppressed by the selective application of these laws, their application in respect of others must be pursued.
00