Author of 'final solution' in global warming 'honored'
Bob Unruh - WND
'I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for deniers'
An influential blog that is written by attorneys whose articles also have appeared in National Review, The Weekly Standard and The American Enterprise has picked a professor from Austria for its “Green Weenie of the Year” award, for advocating that those who reject a belief in global warming be, well, killed.
“The winner of Power Line’s coveted first annual Green Weenie of the Year Award goes to Prof. Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz, Austria,” the organization announced on Christmas Day.
“He actually thinks global warming ‘deniers’ deserve more harsh treatment than Behring Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer who killed 77 people in 2011 (in a country with tough gun control, incidentally),” wrote Steven Hayward.
He’s the Thomas Smith Distinguished Fellow at the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University in Ohio, and he directs the new honors program in political economy. He’s also the William Simon Distinguished Visiting Professor at Pepperdine’s Graduate School of Public Policy.
He cites the writings of Parncutt, who later took down his writing and substituted a new version that said, “Please note that I am not directly suggesting that the threat of execution be carried out. I am simply presenting a logical argument.”
But in the original, quoted by Hayward, Parncutt wrote, “In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential G[lobal] W[warming] deniers.”
He wrote, “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…”
He continued with his explanation that while Breivik, the mass murder, should not face the death penalty, “GW is different. With the high probability it will cause hundreds of millions of deaths. For this reason I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers. More generally, I propose that we limit the death penalty to people whose actions will with a high probability cause millions of future deaths … the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for GW deniers who are so influential that one million future deaths can with high probability to traced to their personal actions.”
Wrote Hayward, “Parncutt, a professor of the psychology of music (really) thinks himself a green version of John Rawls apparently, and posted his extensive case for why the death penalty for climate skeptics would be fully just on his blog… Now that the post actually got read, he’s taken it down, but not before several screen shots were made to preserve it for digital posterity.”
WND reported recently that Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., had a warning for Americans: that if “green” agenda campaigners get their way, the biggest tax increase ever could soon be coming out of Washington.
Bigger even than the hundreds of billions of dollars Obamacare will collect. In fact, in the range of $1.2 trillion to $1.6 trillion. A year.
It was during an interview with blogger Anthony Watts of Internet channel WUWT-TV that he expressed his concern about cap-and-trade and carbon taxes.
Inhofe has spent years in the U.S. Senate fighting cap-and-trade proposals and carbon taxes, which advocates tout as an answer to their claim that man-made emissions are causing the earth to warm.
The campaigns continue, led by such personalities as Al Gore, who has invested in the industry, even though the science supporting the claim largely has been discredited. In the Climategate scandal, for example, emails were uncovered among scientists strategizing how to “hide the decline” in the earth’s average temperature.
Inhofe takes on the issue in his book “The Greatest Hoax: How The Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.”
In the WUWT-TV interview, Inhofe recalled working 12 or 13 years ago to investigate the claims of global warming, when early proposals for a cap-and-trade tax were made. Under such a program, emissions would be capped by law, and anyone wishing to release more than allowed would have to “trade” or buy the “credits.”
Shortly after that, Gore got into the business of promoting the credits, Inhofe noted.
Later came the proposal of taxing carbon emissions, he noted.
Early in the process, he said, the cost to taxpayers of a cap-and-trade program was estimated to have been in the range of $300 billion to $400 billion a year.
It was at that point that Inhofe looked into the science and found it lacking.
He noted that even though Congress has refused to adopt any such program, Barack Obama during his first term spent $68.4 billion on the global warming agenda simply by executive order.
See the interview:
“If we were to do this now through regulation, the cost would be far greater than $300 billion or $400 billion a year … because they’d be doing it under the Clean Air Act,” he said.
“That would quadruple the amount of money it would cost,” said Inhofe, making the cost in the range of $1.2 trillion to $1.6 trillion annually.
Inhofe said not only would it be the most expensive tax hike in history, far above even Obamacare, but the effort would be a singular failure, because emissions limits would have no impact on industries outside the United States.
Significant emissions now are from the unregulated industries of Mexico, India and China, he said.
“Number 1, it wouldn’t accomplish what you want,” he said. “[But you would be getting back] to the largest tax increase in history.”
He said all of the evidence today indicates scientists who support global warming have “cooked the books” on the science.
He said the ultimate goal of supporters of global warming efforts isn’t just money, either.
“Once you control carbon, you control the world,” he said.