Professor Calls for Death Penalty

[bonnie]

December 31, 2012

Professor Calls for Death Penalty for Climate Change 'Deniers'

By Timothy Birdnow

It is as inevitable as the rising of the sun; the Left, when thwarted in their quest for power, suggests the use of lethal force to compel those who disagree.

There is a nauseating litany of murders done by our betters in their pursuit of the Benthamite vision of "the greatest good for the most people" -- which in their minds equates to collectivization and socialism. You have Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Margaret Sanger, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot. Now we can add one more name to the list: Professor Richard Parncutt, Musicologist at Graz University in Austria.

Parncutt has issued -- and later retracted after it the public outcry -- a manifesto calling for the execution of prominent "Climate Change Deniers". What is interesting is that Parncutt hates the death penalty and supports Amnesty International's efforts to end it.

This would be a shocking thing for a college professor to do were it an isolated incident, but this call has been made a number of times in the past. For instance, an anonymous poster at the liberal website Talking Points Memo called for similar action, as did Climate Progress editor Joe Romm, who called for "deniers" to be strangled in their beds. Grist magazine writer David Roberts called for Nuremberg trials for "deniers" and NASA's James Hansen has likewise called for similar trials.

The violent rhetoric has been ongoing -- and disturbing. Liberals in the United States have repeatedly tried to blame mass shootings on talk radio for inflaming the public, yet they are strangely silent about actual calls to violence on the part of environmentalists.

Parncutt's argument is predicated on the notion that we know for a fact that human industrial emissions are causing Global Warming, err, Climate Change, err, Climate Disruption, err, whatever they are calling it today, and that this will lead to millions of deaths, so the public good would be served by murdering those who exercise their free speech and oppose the fundamental reorganization of the international order. (He also calls for the murder of the Pope for the Catholic Church's stand on contraception.) He claims that scientists have no interest in promoting AGW (ignoring the Climategate e-mails and the fact that money flows from governments into research in direct proportion to the apocalyptic nature of said research) and that they would get caught if they fudged data (ignoring Michael Mann who was caught on a number of occasions and still indulges in government funded scientific malpractice). He claims that millions will die from climate change, ignoring the possibility that a warmer, wetter world may actually increase agricultural output and make a better world. He ignores the fact that draconian "sustainable" environmental laws will drastically increase the price of everything, which will guarantee the deaths of millions of people in Third World countries.

Perhaps Dr. Parncutt should volunteer for the first of these executions.

What is ignored here is that it is the radical environmentalists who engage in murder and mayhem. It was Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, who killed innocent people in his war against industrial civilization. We've had Daniel Andreas San Diego. We've had Chaim Nissim, Tre Arrow, Daniel McGowan, James Lee, Jeff Luers, Eric McDavid, Marie Mason and John Wade We've had organizations like the Earth Liberation Front. We have the proponents of Deep Ecology.

In the past we had the Nazis, as Mark Musser has so eloquently illustrated here at American Thinker. Today we have the return of Nazi thinking through Climate Reductionism.

And the first instinct of those on the Progressive Left is to murder their enemies. Parncutt is showing what is in his heart. Granted, he did apologize (no doubt to keep his position) but do we have any reason to fear him or his compatriots less? Especially now; they are in great anger because they know their time is short; Global Warming theory just didn't pan out the way they planned.

Progressives have absolute faith in their intellectual powers, and will not allow facts to stand in their way. Scientism is the modern secular religion, and as Trevor Thomas points out in his article, scientism is not science, but rather a belief system bejeweled with scientific adornments. That there has been no global warming for over fifteen years (contrary to theory) is immaterial. That we see no acceleration of sea level rise, that Antarctica is not melting (see here and here ), that there is no tropical troposphere hot spot, and no major warming in the oceans, the theory is largely falsified. But there is far too much money in it, and too much power and prestige to let it go, so scientists continue to ignore the facts, as do the entire Progressive Left. It has become an article of faith, not a matter for reason. And it is a most useful article of faith, as it justifies world government and Progressive intervention in every aspect of life.

So now the call for executions of "deniers" is becoming more public, and this will only metastasize as the situation grows more desperate for the Gang Green. They are reverting to type.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/p...l#ixzz2GeFpbyI5

[OzarkWoman]

Yep, the same type of people who want to outlaw firearms. Oh well, it seems that their mental illness is just getting worse. All this must happen according to the Bible.

[phkrause]

Yep, the same type of people who want to outlaw firearms. Oh well, it seems that their mental illness is just getting worse. All this must happen according to the Bible.

Could you give the reference of where that is found in the Bible? Thanks

[bonnie]

Could you give the reference of where that is found in the Bible? Thanks

The steady erosion of rights is definitely biblical.At least in my bible. We are becoming like the slowly steeped frog.

Laws and push for laws that this country would not have stood for a couple of decades is so common now,most don't even consider it.

All for the good of the general public of course. From the standpoint of being good for you it would be hard to deny the benefit from reducing the amount of soda you drink at one time. Perfectly logical reasoning,so much so that for heaven's sake,why would anyone object to the ban imposed by Bloomberg? The government can and has gone into schools and taken a child's lunch that did not fit within their guidelines.Don't we want all children to have a healthy lunch? What rational person wants children to be bullied or teased,so naturally the government knows the best way. My nephews were very recently required to participate in transgender day,to teach the children to accept any behavior as just a normal alternative. The boys are 11 and 13.They had ponytails pinned to their hair and feminine items added to their clothing for the day,Just so they would know how "normal" it is.

Semi-Assault rifles are responsible for a small but not insignificant number of murders. So let's ban them. Personally I don't see the need for anyone to have one,but I am totally unfamiliar with them.Who can argue with someone trying to prevent that again?Is it realistic? The ban would certainly stop me if I decided I wanted one,but for those that are willing to kill 20 children,do you think that ban would bother him? His mother went thru the proper requirements for ownership,even gun training and sounds like she did so on a continuing basis. Why she was as foolish as she was with a mentally disturbed adult son in the home no one knows.This gets the knee jerk reaction and attention much like a plane crash that kills 200 people instead of a single car accident killing one. So you prohibit a woman like this from purchasing the weapons she did.What steps will you take to prohibit the illegal purchases along with the ban?

That will not significantly reduce the number of homicides so where to look next? Calling for a ban on 10 inch carving knives like Briton. This seems to be the weapon of choice there now.Makes sense in a way doesn't it? If there is a gun ban to prohibit homicides and homicides are being committed with 10 inch carving knives,the logical next step?

Chicago has some very strict gun laws and a very high rate of homicides.

A town in Ga has a requirement that homeowners have a gun. The crime rate is extremely low,Why is that? Easy access and low crime rate.

As I said in another post,my brother lives in a area of Wy that is still pretty rugged and conservative. It would be rare to find a home without at least one gun. Homicides are unheard of.Home burglaries are a rarity.

The part of northern Mn I am from is the same. Guns are readily available and sometimes simply placed in a corner.Children don't shoot each other and there are no homicides.

If easy accessibility is the cause of these horrific mass murders of children what is the difference?

These area's are not gun free zones,gun free zones have mass murders and like Chicago,500 homicides this year.

There are reasons but will restricting access stop this?

Or is it simply another,"there ought to be a law" for the good of the majority?

[phkrause]

I'm still waiting for the quote. I know all about what happens at the end of time! The government will make sunday laws and those that don't obey will be persecuted for there belief of the True God and for worshiping on the Sabbath.

[bonnie]

I'm still waiting for the quote. I know all about what happens at the end of time! The government will make sunday laws and those that don't obey will be persecuted for there belief of the True God and for worshiping on the Sabbath.

And do you think we will go from where we are at today to waking up suddenly to the Sunday law without a lot of "conditioning" for the majority of people to think that is a great idea for the good of the country?

I don't. Even as things stand today I don't think it would be greeted with the enthusiasm that it will when that day comes.OW will have to tell you what she was referring to but I did not take it as she was referring to a direct quote to a direct action.More the mentality of what is to come. Maybe you do believe a direct quote was being referred to

[OzarkWoman]

One does not have to use direct quotes for what the Bible says will happen and is happening. It is all leadibng to the end of the age and w are muh closer than most want to think we are.

[bonnie]

One does not have to use direct quotes for what the Bible says will happen and is happening. It is all leadibng to the end of the age and w are muh closer than most want to think we are.

I agree,just am always surprised when I see so many,"There ought to be another law" .

It isn't like we are a nation without laws.What makes any of us think criminals and nut jobs are going to be more likely to obey and abide by a new law? I don't know anyone that is in favor of getting rid of all the laws.

I still would like to hear from someone their take on why if easy access is the reason for homicides, that places with strict gun laws have mass murders and 500 homicides a year

and those with the easy access have a very low crime rate?

I don't think semi-automatic assault rifles should be sold at your local Holiday gas station,but I would like to know how anyone proposes to stop the nut jobs and criminals from doing what they set out to do.

Will we get to the place that we are looking to ban 10 inch carving knives because they are being used in high numbers to commit homicides.Then how about the 9 inch or the 8 inch?

There goes my knife set