Prof. Richard Parncutt backs down: “I wish to apologize publicly to all those who were offended”

Posted: December 29, 2012 by Rog Tallbloke in alarmism, flames, Legal, Philosophy

Well, this is good to see. Prof. Richard Parncutt, who previously advocated the execution of ‘prominent global warming ‘deniers”  on one of his personal pages at the University of Graz website has retracted his article and replaced it with the  text below the update.

UPDATE: The University of Graz has issued the following statement:

Die Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz ist bestürzt und entsetzt über die Ansicht und distanziert sich davon klar und deutlich. Die Universität legt größten Wert, dass die Wahrung aller Menschenrechte zu den obersten Prinzipien der Universität Graz gehört und menschenverachtende Aussagen mit aller Entschiedenheit zurückgewiesen werden. Die Universität weist zusätzlich mit Nachdruck darauf hin, dass eine rein persönliche Ansicht, die nicht im Zusammenhang mit der wissenschaftlichen Arbeit steht, auf universitären Webseiten nicht toleriert wird.

The University of Graz is shocked and appalled by the article und 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

Global Warming

smugcuntI wish to apologize publicly to all those who were offended by texts that were previously posted at this address. I made claims that were incorrect and comparisons that were completely inappropriate, which I deeply regret. I alone am entirely responsible for the content of those texts, which I hereby withdraw in their entirety. I would also like to thank all those who took the time and trouble to share their thoughts in emails.

In October 2012, I wrote the following on this page: “I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake.” I wish to confirm that this is indeed my opinion. More generally, all human beings in all places and at all times have equal rights. I have been a member and financial supporter of Amnesty International for at least 18 years, and I admire and support their universal, altruistic approach to defending human rights.

Richard Parncutt, 27-28 December 2012

The opinions expressed on this page are the personal opinions of the author.

________________________________________________________

I don’t think the content of his second paragraph is what caused people to be offended, but anyway, I regard this as a victory for the power of climate sceptical opinion, which is shared by the majority of people in many countries. Richard Tol messaged me the other day to say that he’d had a response from the University of Graz saying they were “horrified” by Prof. Parncutt’s article. I assume they are prime movers behind this sudden turnabout of his views, given the first rewrite wasn’t much less provocative than his original article.

Now that Prof. Parncutt has decided to enter into the spirit of the season of goodwill towards all men and women, I hope he’ll have a happy and more productive New Year.

Comments
  1. Gary says:

    I other words, “i jave to retract these comments on the University website or lose my job.”

    [Reply] Jawohl.

  2. tallbloke says:

    Here’s the comment I just left on William Briggs’ blog:

    Of course with the good Professor’s stats and logic skills being what they are, there is little chance reliable metrics on the success (or otherwise) of his policy would have emerged, even if he’d managed to get it implemented.

    Given that climate sceptics are in the majority in many countries, I doubt their incumbent governing parties would have the temerity to pass the required laws.

    But we should always be on our guard against those seeking to drive in the thin end of the wedge. Richard Tol informs me that the University of Graz responded to his email about their errant staff member saying they were “horrified” by his article.

    Given that his second attempt at formulating it wasn’t much of a change, I’m guessing his most recent change of mind has quite a lot to do with an ensuing ‘come to God’ meeting with the senior HR team.

  3. [...] 29-12-12: Prof. Parncutt has backed down and apologised  /Der Original-Artikel des Herrn Prof  (engl. Version) wurde, nach der weltweiten Aufregung, [...]

  4. Stephen Wilde says:

    I think it is still what he really believes, though.

    Him and a lot of others in positions of power.

    Once one decides that ‘ends justify means’ a little strategic apologising from time to time is of no account.

    Ideally we need to weed out the ‘ends justify means’ types from all our institutions.

  5. oldbrew says:

    The suspicion remains he was told by his employers to either eat humble pie or resign.

  6. oldbrew says:

    This guy has other form of this kind. It seems even the Pope is or was on his hit list.

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/professor-says-execute-pope-benedict/#vYuUGGrAVvIRvt75.99

    Just following his own ‘logic’ presumably.

  7. Joe's World {Progressive Evolution} says:

    TB,

    I have to laugh…
    All I picture of the guy is like a Zombie yelling for “brains…I have to have brains”.
    :-)

  8. Steve Crook says:

    He’s apologising for making his views public. I don’t suppose for a moment he believes that the death penalty is inappropriate, or that ‘deniers’ are in need of sending to re-education camps until they see sense. The thing is, I don’t think he should have been made to take the piece down, it should still be there for all the world to see as a poster child of how easy it is to follow the road paved with good intentions into something altogether darker.

  9. tallbloke says:

    Statement from Graz University:

    Die Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz ist bestürzt und entsetzt über die Ansicht und distanziert sich davon klar und deutlich. Die Universität legt größten Wert, dass die Wahrung aller Menschenrechte zu den obersten Prinzipien der Universität Graz gehört und menschenverachtende Aussagen mit aller Entschiedenheit zurückgewiesen werden. Die Universität weist zusätzlich mit Nachdruck darauf hin, dass eine rein persönliche Ansicht, die nicht im Zusammenhang mit der wissenschaftlichen Arbeit steht, auf universitären Webseiten nicht toleriert wird.

    The University of Graz is shocked and appalled by the article und 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

  10. It seems Parncutt is Australian see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Parncutt . New England Univ is a rural Uni which has remote learning and postgraduate degrees by course work. By international ratings it does not rate in the top twenty of Australian Universities or in the top 1000 of world universities. I would suggest his knowledge of physics is less than high school standard.
    It seems his is a associated professionally with the likes of John Cook (Qld Uni and the pathetic SkepticalScience blog) and Prof Lewandowsky who both have used the “Denier” term and compared them to flat earthers etc Can not remember if Lewandowsky’s pathetic survey featured here but it did at WUWT and JoNova.
    I, really, to do not know how these supposed psychologists get funded. Australian primary students are falling behind the rest of the developed world in literacy and numeracy. The leftist including the present government have the stupid aim of everyone getting a degree from a tertiary institute. They do that by lowering standards all through the education system. I suppose they think if everyone is stupid at the bottom of the barrel the less stupid like them can rise to the top.

  11. Doug Proctor says:

    In the passion of the moment, possibly having come from a meeting in the university pub of like-minded, wired-to-the-teeth eco-environmental liberals, he might have written his calling to the faithful. He has backed down without any caveats, and included a reference to those who e-mailed that that they were appalled.

    I suggest we accept his words with respect and his apology as that of one truly embarrassed and chastened.

    Would such a thing ever come from Mann, Gore, Hansen, Schmidt, Suzuki, Strong or Ehrlich?

  12. tchannon says:

    Oz New England?
    “Motto Ex sapientia modus (Latin: “Out Of Wisdom Comes Moderation”)”

    Ah yes, the moderator shut him up.

  13. Zeke says:

    The argument the Professor made was that those who obstruct the supposedly life-saving measures of climate policy are guilty of murder.

    It should not escape attention or comparison that the EPA has tried to stop people in Alaska from burning wood fires because of the particulates this releases in the atmosphere – breaking so-called “soot standards.” The argument the EPA makes is that it will save millions in health costs and –

    “By 2020, EPA rules “will prevent 230,000 early deaths,” one recent Administration report claims. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has gone so far as to testify before Congress that the new regulations would provide health benefits as valuable as a cure for cancer.”

    So the foundation of the Professor’s arguments are still being aggressively laid down. If EPA rules will prevent 230,000 early deaths, then those who oppose the legislation, or break the laws and build fires are apparently causing 230,000 deaths, aren’t they?

    So if the claims of imagined health benefits and imagined deaths persists, the murder charge must necessarily and logically be implied.

  14. Steve In Tulsa says:

    There has been no cooling in 15 years. The so-called climate scientists refuse to release the original raw temperature data, they refuse to release the time periods of the stations, they refuse to discuss how they altered the entire record to make it appear warmer than the raw record would indicate, they refuse any request for information whatsoever. They are worse than stage magicians. A real scientist preserves all data, original raw data and the resulted cooked dataset, preserves all methods to manipulate the data to change it, and then a real scientist would make all that available DARING anyone to find fault with it; This is widely known as “the scientific method’. Isn’t it strange the climate alarmists refuse to follow the scientific method and refuse to let anyone see what they have done?

    And this silly ‘music teacher’ thinks he should be allowed to kill those who disagree with him. He must be one of the totalitarian democrats.

  15. DP111 says:

    Now here is another professor, who is arguing

    Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html

    Now is it just a coincidence that the left, unable to get the American people to give up their self-defence weapons, or to bypass the constitution, wants to circumvent the constitution.

  16. Peter K Sour says:

    Can the genie ever be re-bottled?

  17. Der BND fordert: das Bekenntnis zum Deutschen Volk, zu seiner Ehre, zu seinem Blut muß straffrei werden und darf von den Judengerichten nicht angeklagt werden – BND - Bewegung Neue Demokratie says:

    [...] Prof. Richard Parncutt backs down: “I wish to apologize publicly to all those who were offende… (tallbloke.wordpress.com) [...]