Progressive Professor Demands Death Penalty for Global Warming Skeptics and the Pope

“And then we put them up against a wall and shoot them”

It’s almost 2013 and that apocalyptic future seems to be getting closer and closer. Sure we have no flying cars, but we do have a creepy dystopian dictatorship sneaking up on us. Except it isn’t sneaking up anymore, it’s jack-booting its way around the halls.

Richard Parncutt is an Austrian professor of Music, which makes him an expert on global warming, who originally hails from Australia, but in true progressive style is ashamed of Australia. According to Dick, he is waiting for reconciliation with the aborigines to really happen “so that I can be proud of where I come from.”

Parncutt also hates Israel and Mormons, and wants a global wealth tax. And even though he is opposed to the death penalty in the case of mass murderers, he’s willing to consider an exception for people he really disagrees with.

Onward Discordia!

In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from.

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. Apparently, it does not even act as a deterrent to would-be murderers. Hopefully, the USA and China will come to their senses soon…

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.

Well it is for the greater good. The only question is should we turn their bodies into fertilizer for mother earth after we burn them in a giant wooden man to help end global warming and improve crop yields?

Consider this: If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%.

For the purpose of argument, let’s give the GW deniers the benefit of the doubt and imagine that the scientists are wrong with a high probability, say 90%. If they are right, some 100 million people will die as a direct result of GW. Probably more like a billion, but this is a conservative estimate. If the probability of that happening is only 10%, then effectively “only” 10 million people will die. These are the numbers that GW deniers are playing with while exercising their “freedom of speech”.

Fortunately you don’t need to understand math to advocate killing people in the name of science.

Consider for the purpose of argument, let’s give Parncutt the benefit of the doubt, and assume that there is only a 1 percent chance that his views will lead to the murder of 1 trillion people. That still means, based on his math, that there is a 100 percent chance that Parncutt’s views will lead to the murder of 10 billion people.

According to Parncutt’s own numbers there is a 100 percent chance that his games with “Freedom of Speech” will lead to the murder of 10 billion people.

At this point, Parncutt begins to get even crazier, if such a thing were possible.

Consider the following scenario. A suicidal genius develops the means to destroy most of the world’s population. A heroic woman turns up (could also be a man, if you prefer) and kills the villain just in time. Just like one of those superheroes comics. Even Amnesty International joins in congratulating the heroine. What else can they do? They are glad to be alive themselves.

From this example, it is clear that there is a dividing line somewhere between murders for which the death penalty is appropriate and murders for which it is inappropriate. I am proposing to make that dividing line concrete at about one million people. 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.

Well that’s good. Most plans to kill people should be grounded in something morally serious… like comic books.

Killing someone to prevent one murder is immoral. Killing someone to prevent one million murders is moral. The number is what makes something moral or immoral.

Assuming that Parncutt is operating on some sort of consistent logic (far-fetched as that notion may be)  then he would oppose having the police shoot a man to save the life of one woman. Only if he were threatening the lives of one million women.

This is your brain. This is your brain on progressivism.

That raises the interesting question of whether and how the Pope and his closest advisers should be punished for their consistent stand against contraception in the form of condoms.

This is what I love about progressives. They’re such moral people that they are opposed to the death penalty, but will begin drawing up lists of who should be killed at the drop of a hat.

This differentiates them from most people who support the death penalty for murderers, but don’t aspire to be murderers themselves and do not have lists of people they think should be killed. Particularly not people whose only crime is having different beliefs than them.

But this is why we should let progressives run our societies. It worked in Russia. It worked in China. It worked in Cambodia. It worked in Cuba.

How can it not work out here? What’s the worst that could happen? A few million dead at the hands of cretins who think that the death penalty is immoral unless they get to draw up the lists of who should be killed.

We are talking about millions of deaths, so according to the principle I have proposed, the Pope and perhaps some of his closest advisers should be sentenced to death.

And any Catholics who resist. You’re going to eventually have to kill them too. And their continued opposition to birth control as part of a dissenting movement will maintain the Catholic Church and lead to the death of millions in Africa. So you’re going to have to kill them too. Perhaps in some sort of streamlined and efficient way with minimal carbon footprints.

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.

And when enough thinking gets done, horrible things become acceptable. And then politicians and lawyers are found who will carry them out.

Given that the alleged victims of the criminal act are not confined to the country in which the GW denier lives, but are all over the world, then only an international court (perhaps the International Criminal Court) would do. I guess that right now there is no existing law, either national or international, under which such a prosecution could be pursued. Given the overriding importance of GW (just about everything else that we hold dear depends on it), I am proposing with this text a legal change that will make the criminal trial of GW deniers possible.

And then let’s process their bodies and feed them to the hungry under some innocuous environmentally friendly label. Like Soylent Green.

The police would start to identify the most influential GW deniers who had not responded to the changed legal situation. These individuals would then be charged and brought to justice.

If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death.

Naturally they would have to be “qualified” scientists. You couldn’t have the rabble deciding important issues like this.

The sentence would then be commuted to life imprisonment if the accused admitted their mistake, demonstrated genuine regret, AND participated significantly and positively over a long period in programs to reduce the effects of GW (from jail) – using much the same means that were previously used to spread the message of denial. At the end of that process, some GW deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed.

Parncutt neglects the positive aspect of torturing GW deniers for their heretical views until they confess and affirm the glory of Global Warming so that all the world may know that the planet is really about to explode in a fireball of melted ice.

You’ve come a long way baby, from the Spanish Inquisition to the Green Inquisition.

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.

Assuming you haven’t put him in front of a firing squad yet.

But doesn’t every political mass murderer believe that he’ll be viewed as a saint generations from now? About the only one who is, is Che.

I don’t want to be a saint. I would just like my grandchildren and great grandchildren, and the human race in general, to enjoy the world that I have enjoyed, as much as I have enjoyed it. And to achieve that goal I think it is justified for a few heads to roll. Does that make me crazy? I don’t think so.

I just want to kill a bunch of people whose views I dislike to make the world a better place for my grandchildren. How does that make me a crazy person?

History. No one learns from it.

  • RedWhiteAndJew

    When they made this, you thought they were joking.

    Interesting insight into the mind of a environ-mental case, though. Startling that he admits he thinks in comic book terms.

    I wonder if he gets those spikey onomatopoeia balloons in his head, with Bang! and Pow! and Ooof! when he gets really excited.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      No, it's how they really think. Enemies of the state and all that.

      • Mary Sue

        Liberal insanity, combined with virulent hatred, shows it knows no bounds when idiots like that non-scientist Australian Music Prof open their mouths (or type on their keyboards).

        Come to think of it, virulent hatred seems to be a prerequisite in Liberalism–but only for the 'right' things…

  • jakespoon

    Is he from Austria or Australia. Either way this man is a nut and I don't think he has ever enjoyed life. Miserable people want everyone else miserable,also.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      He's from Australia and moved to Austria, just to confuse everyone.

  • ef be

    Don't drink the water in Austria!

  • Steve Martin

    December 25, 2012 By Daniel Greenfield
    RE: Onward Discordia! – (quote) …."Progressive Professor Demands Death Penalty for Global Warming Skeptics and the Pope"…"Parncutt also hates Israel and Mormons, and wants a global wealth tax."

    Daniel: What the heck does THAT MEAN?

    ~ Israel, – Mormons, – Global Warming & – the POPE are NOT RELATED!

    What's your COGENT point………..?

    If I decide to be an idiot, then I'll be an idiot on my own accord.
    ~ Johannes Sebastian Bach


    • Daniel Greenfield

      You'll have to ask Parncutt what the common theme of his hatred is.

    • Rifleman

      I think that's to give the reader an idea of where this 'professor' is coming from, and entice us to look into him further on our own. Your brainlock isn't the author's fault.

  • deltamike67

    If there's anything that qualifies for "Hate Speech", this is it! Can you imagine a similar article that targeted welfare free-loaders and Muslims instead of Global Warming skeptics and Catholics? I doubt if anyone would touch it with a ten foot pole.

  • Ghostwriter

    Is this Parncutt guy out of his mind? Please don't let this creep come to America. We already have wackos like this. We don't need any more.

    • Jake Hoek

      Obviously this guy has no mind! IF HE HAD A TRACE LEFT, HE WOULD COMMIT SUICIDE!

  • R James

    Please spare me from hearing his music.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I imagine he likes to listen to Wagner while drawing up his kill lists.

  • Anthony Watts

    His essay page at the University of Graz has been "sanitized" due to the uproar over his views.

    Before it was disappeared, I used a web archiving service to save the hate speech filled essay for posterity. You can get the link to the WebCite original here:

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Thanks for the great work you're doing.

  • LibertarianToo

    Interesting that this guy wants to kill those who (theoretically) cause the death of 1,000,000 people. I should think that to environmentalists the deaths of millions of people (as opposed to great blue herons, wood storks, etc.) would be a GOOD thing. Strange also that he still thinks global warming is the problem, when the rest of them are hiding behind "climate change" since they don't have any data to support "GW". Sounds like even environmentalists won't talk to this lonely guy . . .

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Ah but once you embrace the premise that you have to take action to save 1,000,000 people then you can kill any number of people short of that figure to save them.

      So if you kil 999,999 people to save 1,000,000 people, you have actually saved one person and you are a hero.

      Or an environmental psychopath.

      • Mary Sue

        To extend the the envirowhacko's logic, democrats running Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, etc. deserve the death penalty for doing NOTHING about the gang based shootings that go on there daily. ;)

        • jakespoon

          Then there are abortionist,50,000,000 dead since Roe v Wade. Think he'll condone putting them against the wall? I doubt it ,abortion is a holy sacrament for his kind.

          • Mary Sue

            I would bet you dollars to donuts that he's the sort of person that would consider the deaths of millions of aborted babies "justified" (part of the whole "population control" thing).

            The big question is "when is a murder a murder"? And also, is he talking millions of people, or millions of animals? Is he advocating the death penalty because millions of people might be killed? I'm guessing that's not the sole reason, nor the actual reason. No, I think he wants capital punishment to prevent "the death of the Planet". Yeah. He's that f___ed in the head.

          • jakespoon

            Right,M.S., to these people a rat is a cat is a dog is a boy. No difference. Satanic at it's core.

          • Mary Sue

            Which is why I'd like to ask those morons like Ingrid Newkirk and her ilk, "IF a Rat is a cat is a dog is a pig is a boy", why do cats EAT rats?"

    • Questions

      The professor advocates a strange variation on utilitarianism, so strange in fact that even Bentham wouldn't recognize it.

  • rodger the dodger

    This person is sick, he has a diseased mind.

  • Drakken

    If ever there was a case for a lead injection, it is this effing moron.

  • kafir4life

    Hmmm….Where does the good professor stand on abortion with regards to the "future" lives that are lost? Would he apply the same penalty to those who would deny those future lives? I'm guessing not.

    • Mary Sue

      I think the actual reason he wants the death penalty is to prevent the death of Planet Earth, in actuality.

  • PAthena

    This professor is an ignoramus, on top of everything else. Does he really think that human beings were better off during this last Ice Age than they are now, the climate having warmed up?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      He thinks this is how statistics work

      "Consider this: If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%."

      So it's safe to assume that his ignorance is bottomless

      • Mary Sue

        Yeah, never trust a professor that uses Idiot Math and wouldn't know statistics if it bit him in the behind.

    • Rifleman

      That gives me an idea. Before they alter anything we're doing, they should come to a consensus on what the optimum climate should be. That should keep them busy forever.

      To tune the climate they have to be able to predict and regulate volcanic activity, plate tectonics, asteroid collisions, prevent the moon's escape and regulate its' orbit, not to mention control Sol's output. It takes a mind boggling arrogance to think we can tune the climate to whatever we decide. It's also amusing to think these same people will claim a task magnitudes smaller and easier, like shooting down an ICBM attack, is impossible.

  • Frekki

    There are something like 4 billion people on this planet. If just one percent disagree with this guy, and we do what he says, then 40 million people will have to die. I say we stop their future deaths by killing this guy now.

  • cxt

    Since he feels that its "generally ok" to kill one person to save a million—then is he equally "ok" with killing people and destroying organization/s that provide/help/allow abortion?

    I'm just really confused as to where exactly he draws the line concerning the "furture people" he is so concerned about. ;)

    Plus since he wants to KILL people that don't belive as he does–what does he suggest we do with the Chinese–you know the folks building a COAL FIRED power palnt at the rate of 1 per week/month? Should we invade to stop it? Launch missile? After all according to HIM the whole planet and eberythign on it is at stake–would HIS logic not sugget that World War 3 is a small price to pay to save the entire earth? ;)

    Plus what he does precisely that and gets a lot of GW "deniers" killed–and then his end-of-the-world thing DOES NOT HAPPEN? What is HE turns out to be in the wrong–can't somehow "unkill" people.

    • Mary Sue

      Future People is a cover. I'm sure what's really motivating him is the continued livability of the Planet. Not that such a concern is even remotely valid, because if (theoretically) there is global warming, then not just people, but plants and animals will presumably die as well.

  • Annie

    Yet they preach evolutionary adaptation. If there is to be climate change, the world will adapt itself too it. Simple no?
    These people are hysterical nuts who have no logic and no common sense at all.
    This man simply has a chip on his shoulder and looking for a problem so he can harm people.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      He won't adapt.

      The polar bears will find him and eat him… and he knows it.

      • jakespoon


      • Mary Sue

        Polar Bears will mix with grizzlies! :D

    • Mary Sue

      yeah it's amazing how little faith people actually have in Evolution.

  • high treason

    His ravings have the smell of both ultra socialism and Nazism. Mind you, Nazi stands for National Socialist Workers Party- the Nazis were socialists! Do note, the Nazis were ultra green-they loved nature and animals, but hated humans. Professor Parncutt is as qualified as our current Climate Commissioner on matters climate related-perhaps he has his job in his sights. Interesting the silence from the bleeding hearts in relation to these genuinely offensive comments. Could it be that the highly vocal minority bleeding hearts are closet Socialists/ Nazis?

    • Heinrich I

      The Nazis didn’t hate ethnic Germans or Aryans descended from the German Volk. The Volkssturm were destined to rule the world in a glorious Reich!

  • Western Canadian

    I have never heard a single individual describe themselves as ‘progressive’ or ‘enlightened’ who is in any way shape or form, either. They are also virtually never well informed or educated, and live in their own little (strange to the point of scaring normal people) world, where up is down and black is white, except when it is neither….. His every assertion on the environment or the science pertaining to it, is utter swill. As someone who began studying (formally and otherwise) environmental and climate issues over 30 years ago, any comment this loon comes out with about the enviroment is 180 degrees from the real world. His grasp of the science, does not exist…. His understanding of physics, stats, law, or anything else he comments on, is non-existant. GET THAT MAN A JOB IN THE LAME STREAM MEDIA!!!! He is definitely qualified for the position, and nothing else.

    A sixteen year old victim of a government issue school might, repeat MIGHT be excused for being so sadly ignorant and delusionally full of himself… How this loon, well past his teens (and credibility) has managed to remain as ignorant and irrational…. It’s frightening to think that he is allowed within 500 miles of an institute of learning. The number of deaths due to louts like him (banning DDT, burning food for fuel, scams about ozone depletion…. ) is staggering.

    • Mary Sue

      I've never known a single "progressive" individual that was sane by any stretch of the imagination, either. Many have various identified mental illnesses (bipolar, borderline personality disorder, narcissist personality disorder, etc).

      The craziest are the vegans, and they are crazy for a REASON. When a person stops eating meat, they stop getting vitamin B12. They slowly but surely deplete it in their bodies and then go nuts.

      • jakespoon

        But they "mean well", that's all that matters to them. Well,Hitler thought he meant well,too.

        • Mary Sue

          Well you know what they say about the road to hell…….paved with good intentions.

  • Bruce

    Gee, another over-educated pseudo-intellectual progressive, who thinks his opinion is worth listening to, gosh where have I seen that before…. Oh I know, Holly-weird types, but without any appreciable education (a few exceptions) but equally bent. What these fools fail to realize is… with most of the “tin horn” masters that get into power the first they kill off is the “educated ones” not the average ones. So when this clown gets his wish look to Robespierre and his outcome.

  • George

    Liberals are always for saving savage criminals from death row but when it comes to Republicans the liberal compassion disappears.

  • zaynab

    The real most imminent threat that we face is North Korea or Iran letting loose an EMP explosion over the United States. The liberals don't want to focus on that because it doesn't give them an excuse to rob corporations of their money under the guise of a greenhouse tax. Focussing on that would mean going to war and the liberals don't want to go to war with anyone who hates the United States.

  • Sarah Rolph

    This guy is way behind the curve. He is not the first one to make these disturbing remarks. They were made clear two years ago by the shocking video "No Pressure." In that video, you don't have to be an intellectual to get blown to smithereens for your lack of Green awareness. Everyone gets it if they aren't on board with The Program. The film starts off with the killing of school kids.

  • zaynab

    According to Richard Parncutt's on reasoning all liberal leaders who don't act immediately to protect our electrical system from EMP are bringing about the death of hundreds of millions of people and therefore should be shot. In fact all global alarmists who divert attention from the true threats that face us should be shot according to his reasoning. That would include him I'm afraid.

    • jakespoon

      In that case,I'm on board.

  • tagalog

    So much for science as an endless debate, in which erroneous claims are discarded and questionable ones are refined by ongoing criticism, new perspectives, and attacks, eh?

    Just kill those who disagree with us; those we decide not to kill we can just put into labor camps, right? Seems to me I've heard about that kind of approach to science before…

  • Jay

    Inciting others to violence is a crime unless its by a professor. Then its academic freedom.

    • tagalog

      Maybe one topic, among the professors' favorites, should be put on the back burner until they get finished exterminating the global warming/climate change dissenters. Then they can get back to gun control.

  • Shelly

    Perhaps if we ignore this nincompoop he will go away…..

  • Judenlieber

    Let me see if I understand this. The guy is a professor of music who is originally from Australia, but moved to Austria because he was ashamed of the past history of Australia? Oh, I just remembered! Austrians are people who believe that Hitler was German and Beethoven was Austrian.

    • Mary Sue

      I'm sure this guy, if presented with Hitler's resume, would approve wholeheartedly if he didn't know it was Hitler.

      • Mary Sue

        (the professor of music)

  • John Gostich

    What is needed at this point in time is a professional for the express purpose of putting him out of his misery.

  • pagegl

    It's clowns like this that make me wonder if there is even one progressive who isn't dumber than a box of rocks.

  • Firebird

    Another gaia worsphipping radical he needs to leave america

  • Jose Veragio

    The Professor Parncutt has been forced into a humiliating climbdown and apology for his remarks, after the intercession of a British Lord, the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who was also one of the targets of the hateful comments.

  • alan stemp

    Interesting that he is suggesting punishing people for the possible deaths of future people through global warming, …

    yet he wants to punish the Pope for opposing contraception?!?

    Contraception also 'kills' theoretical future people. (and many are abortifacents which kill current people).

    This gentleman should check in with a psychologist. Or, perhaps he can explain why the global warming potential victims are a preferred class over the contracepted potential victims.

    What a loon. But he should be taken seriously, due to the agreement with his views on the part of a significant subsection of our elites.

  • Alan

    This bloke is a quite a few sandwiches short of a picnic, we don't want him back in Australia anyway. I reckon he is so lonely and deluded, he is trying to get attention, well forget it, you ain't getting any, you are a sad case.

  • David McElroy

    Parncutt is allowed to teach as a professor ? He should be in a straitjacket! Parncutt is a perfect example of the liberal madness claiming to be "progressive". Yeah, if you call moving closer to the gates of Hell making "progress"!

  • gene457

    I can’t tell you how much I would pay for the opportunity to beat the ever-living mother-f#cking sh**t out of this fa66ot.