This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
I thought it was absolutely wonderful! JoAnne picked up on the proportionality and other mathematical howlers and someone on Anthony's WUWT gave a link to a Telegraph (I think Australian) article wherein this prize pillock whinges about his difficulties in securing a Professorship, probably because of the envy of his colleagues.
Do read it - it's hilarious.
The AGW sceptic blogosphere have tended to treat Parncutt as being an isolated nutcase, but his outburst is I think based on a fairly mainstream Green idea which believes that there is such a crime as 'ecocide'. This is one of those Green ideas, a bit like population control, that tends not to be given too much publicity by environmental journalists.
Link to Wikipedia article on ecocide, together with a few extracts from the article:
"The neologism ecocide can be used to refer to any large-scale destruction of the natural environment or over-consumption of critical non-renewable resources. An early reference in 1969 described it as "Ecocide - the murder of the environment - is everybody's business." The term was also used in relation to environmental damage due to war such as the use of defoliants in the Vietnam War, and the use of glyphosate in the Colombian civil war."
"U.S. environmental theorist and activist Patrick Hossay argues that the human species is committing ecocide, via industrial civilization's effects on the global environment. Much of the modern environmental movement stems from this belief as a precept."
"The concept of making Ecocide an international crime has been around for decades. From the 1970s onwards there has been growing support from government, business and communities to make Ecocide the fifth International Crime against peace to stand alongside the crime of Genocide by amending the Rome Statute. It is part of an emerging body of Earth Law or Earth jurisprudence."
"Making Ecocide an international crime is proposed in order to protect human rights, the natural environment, prevent runaway climate change and trigger the transformation to the green economy. However, opponents argue that this will criminalise the whole human race."
What Parncutt has done is to go a stage further than most Greenies, and is speculating about what punishments are to be handed out for the ecocide crimes, and he appears after some thought to have decided that the death penalty is necessary for influential AGW sceptics.
I suspect that Parncutt won't lose his job over his barking mad remarks because he happens to be located in Austria, which is probably the world's most Green-leaning country. [I judge how Green a country is by how anti-nuclear it is, and Austria is often regarded as the world's most anti-nuclear country] There are probably only two famous Austrians in the world at the moment - Arnold Schwarzenegger and Felix Baumgartner, and both are Greenies. Schwarzenegger's entry into American politics to implement environmentalist ideas is fairly well known. Baumgartner is the person who carried out a daredevil parachute jump from the edge of the Earth's atmosphere a few months back, but contrary to what some journalists expected, it turned out that he had the usual level of Green interest in space exploration - none:
Absolutely it`s a mainstream green idea , many greens have called for actions to deal with sceptics ranging from incarceration ,being treated with drugs/electroshock therapy to "cure" them , gas chambers and that green wet dream , the 10:10 video of just blowing sceptics up.
I suspect most environuts are vaguely aware that proposing wholesale slaughter of people just for disagreeing with You is bad publicity but misanthropy is such a strong undercurrent of their cult(ure)that every so often one of them can`t restrain themselves and excitedly blurts out their dark Malthusian fantasies.
I didn`t agree with the approach of confronting the University and getting them to pressure Parncutt to retract His ravings as I think it`s better to let people see the twitching insane monster that lurks beneath the bland green mask.
I did manage to get myself banned from the Australian Skeptic Group (a huge inconvenience, since I live in the pacific northwest), because I suggested that a 2X4 might help some of the scientist remember the fundamentals of physics. I hinted that some of the scientists we have today would analyze a railroad track and spend a little too much time trying to figure out where the vibrations were coming from.
I was apparently being violent.
Perhaps my imagery did involve violence. I am inclined to use such imagery again. Right now there is a great desire in the States to disarm the populace. Great in this case means a minority of the population, but you wouldn't quite know that from the media reports.
Assault weapons are terrifying. My answer is to make automatic weapons legal. Put a fully automatic AR-15 in the hands of the instigator of the Sandy Hook incident, and the death toll would be significantly less than it was. Several people would have been more dead than they already were, but the assailant would have sprayed the rest harmlessly in the wrong direction. There is a reason the M-16 no longer has a Full auto capability.
They broke Enigma by leveraging a hole created to prevent the obvious from happening. When you pressed an A, A would never come out the other end. Intuition might suggest to someone that we don't want to not encypher a letter. Turns out that was the wrong idea. Sudoku teaches us that.