The funny thing is, Professor Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz isn’t even a climate scientist. He teaches Systematic Musicology. So, if you’re one of those global warming deniers, then you shouldn’t be allowed to have an opinion because you don’t have enough expertise in climate science, or if you do, you should have your credentials stripped from you because you’ve proven yourself unworthy to have them. On the other hand, if you support the theory of anthropogenic global warming, it doesn’t matter what credentials you have or don’t have, your opinion is vital and true. You could be a bum living in a cardboard box in D.C. with an 8th grade education and believe that man is causing the earth to warm, and that if the “lords” over in the D.C. castle don’t “do something” about it, humanity will be wiped out, and it will be the fault of all those “deniers.” And that poor bum’s opinion will have more respect than the climate scientists with 18 Ph.D.’s who believe the only thing that’s manmade about anthropogenic global warming is the theory itself.
So what did this professor actually say? You can read his entire rant here. Here’s an excerpt from the beginning:
“In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW [global warming] deniers. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from.”
He then goes on to explain that he’s actually opposed to the imposition of the death penalty in general. He doesn’t believe that everyday murderers should receive such a “barbaric” sentence, that not even mass murderers deserve it. He referred to the Norwegian mass murderer Behring Breivik who killed 77 people last year and said that “if the Norwegian government killed him, that would just increase the number of dead to 78.” He said that putting him and other murderers to death won’t bring back the people that were slain, as if that’s the point of the death penalty. Then he moves on to the “deniers”:
“GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate… With high probability it will cause hundreds of millions of deaths. For this reason I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers. More generally, I propose that we limit the death penalty to people whose actions will with a high probability cause millions of future deaths… I wish to claim that it is generally ok to kill someone in order to save one million people. Similarly, the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for GW deniers who are so influential that one million future deaths can with high probability be traced to their personal actions. Please note also that I am only talking about prevention of future deaths – not punishment or revenge after the event.”
He thinks that maybe in 40 years, even the Pope will see him as a saint for his courage in suggesting such a penalty for those who dare to question the official narrative of climate change:
“Right now, in the year 2012, these ideas will seem quite crazy to most people. People will be saying that Parncutt has finally lost it. But there is already enough evidence on the table to allow me to make the following prediction: If someone found this document in the year 2050 and published it, it would find general support and admiration. People would say I was courageous to write the truth, for a change. Who knows, perhaps the Pope would even turn me into a saint.”
There’s a lot more in his rant that is worth writing about, but there’s just not enough room here to discuss it. It’s becoming clearer what the agenda is regarding just about any official narrative spouted off by the media and government. If you dare to even question them, they will view you as the worst kind of criminal there is, even worse than terrorists and mass murderers. And speaking of penalizing those who cause the deaths of millions of future people, isn’t it ironic that he doesn’t say one word about abortion?