Probably not:
And the linked post: A billion deaths at two degrees? Why climate activists should make a special effort to get the science right – Mark Lynas
Lynas traces down the claim of billions of people will die.
The claim of billions of deaths is sourced to a paper written by a professor of musicology who has a background in music and physics (especially sound). In his paper, he also said the death penalty is warranted for “global warming deniers”, who should be executed. He then linked to a separate list of people labeled as “Climate change deniers” implying they should be executed. His University launched an investigation and made him remove the paper. He then offered a defense of his death penalty goal on his own web site – and continued to link to a list of people he implies should be executed.
He implies we know precisely what the future holds, and therefore, should prosecute people today for things that may or may not happen in the future, if those people today committed wrong-think.
If AGW is caused by 1000 highly influential deniers, and the main result of this massive global denial effort will be a billion future premature deaths, then each highly influential denier is causing a million deaths. That’s why I proposed limiting the death penalty to people who cause a million deaths. On the one hand, the number one million is high enough to save all prisoners on all death rows. On the other hand, my proposal might have made some of the world’s most influential climate deniers death-penalty candidates, pending the outcome of court procedures. That would hopefully have scared them enough to stop climate denial in its tracks.
The right to life: Influential climate deniers versus children of the Global South (parncutt.org)
He uses threats of execution to silence critics. Presumably he believes in academic freedom for himself, but not for others. Indeed, he advocates for the death penalty for other academics who disagree with his assertions. Academic freedom applies only to those who hold proper right-think views. Similarly, he favors censorship, but presumably only if he is the censor.
Prof. Richard Parncutt is a climate hypocrite – he has traveled, studied and lived all over the world, which undoubtedly benefited him. He now believes that not doing everything to stop climate change (which would include ending all flying) is grounds for execution.
He studied in Australia, has worked in Germany, Sweden, Canada, Germany again, Austria and the UK and presumably traveled to and from these destinations by air travel, which he implies should now be forbidden:
Please also find the courage to talk openly about how bad this situation really is, and consequently how urgently we must stop all carbon emissions everywhere. Hardly anyone has the courage to do that, as I found out in 2013.
He personally benefited from modern life and air travel – but now demands all others be denied such benefits based on an hypothesis – and goes further, saying that those who disagree with his assessment should be executed.
Presumably, like Prof Agnes Callard’s argument, air travel was beneficial, transformative and useful to important elite people like Callard and Parncutt – therefore, their travels were fine. It is us little people who should not be traveling because we are unimportant twits and derive little of value, unlike important elite people such as Parncutt.
Parncutt comes across as global elitist, climate and academic freedom hypocrite.
