At 10:18 AM 12/31/2012, Zell, Chris wrote:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/death-threats-anyone-austrian-prof-global-warming-deniers-should-be-sentenced-to-death/
This ugly spirit is ruining free inquiry and science in
general. Fortunately, he lacks credibility on the subject.
Before spreading stuff like this, taken from a blog, I suggest
*actually checking it*. The man in question, who was simply exploring
an idea on his own blog, quickly apologised, yesterday.
I found the source by following a link from Joanne Nova's blog at
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/death-threats-anyone-austrian-prof-global-warming-deniers-should-be-sentenced-to-death/
and from there to his More comment about his opposition to the death penalty.
I understand what he was saying.
Without raising the argument, *suppose* that global warming will
happen, and it's caused by us, and it will cause millions of deaths.
Maybe a billion.
If so, the global warming denial, the argument would go, could cause
a billion deaths, and if that's so, the professor suggested that this
would be worthy of the death penalty.
Now, the man is a strong supporter of Amnesty International. He's
*firmly* opposed to the death penalty. I read his thinking as simply
saying that this is a very serious matter.
Backing up, we, as a society need to be able to *think*. The thought
process requires taking up ideas and *holding* them for a time.
Just because an idea, if accepted, could mean that a billion people
would die, does *not* mean that someone should be taken out and shot
because they have the idea and express it!
It's also possible that if a huge amount of effort it put into
avoiding a non-existent hazard, if that's what global warming is,
resources would be wasted that could save a billion lives, eventually.
To make genuine choices, we need to be able to think regardless of
political correctness -- or any sort of fixed assumptions. We need
our full collective intelligence. That requires freedom of thought
and, generally, expression.
In all directions.
But *action* is another thing. Action to harm our ability to think
clearly, collectively, would be *oppressive*, and that is where
serious response could become appropriate. We have, for very good
reason, developed strong traditions of intellectual freedom, and we
need to guard against a constant tendency to repress minority opinion.
My sense is that minority opinion is *usually* wrong, but the
exceptions can be doozies! We need minority opinion, it will keep the
majority on its toes, and ... sometimes the minority is actually right.
From the professor's web site,
http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/climatechange_apology.html
Global warming
I 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.
The following extract from the text was intended to apply to the
entire text: 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.
Richard Parncutt, 27-30 December 2012
