Australian politician Peter Phelps has, in that quiet underspoken way that Australian politicians have, compared climatologists to scientists working for the Nazis.
At the heart of many scientists—but not all scientists—lies the heart of a totalitarian planner. One can see them now, beavering away, alone, unknown, in their laboratories. And now, through the great global warming swindle they can influence policy, they can set agendas, they can reach into everyone's lives; they can, like Lenin, proclaim "what must be done". While the humanities had a sort of warm-hearted, muddle-headed leftism, the sciences carry with them no such feeling for humanity. And it is not a new phenomenon. We should not forget that some of the strongest supporters of totalitarian regimes in the last century have been scientists and, in return, the State lavishes praise, money and respectability on them.
He elides from here into a quotation about the involvement of scientists in the rise of the Nazis. This is probably going to cause a few ructions - in fact it already is. The problem is that as soon as you invoke the N-word, you conjure up pictures of jackbooted stormtroopers rather than the mild-mannered scientists who are the problem. This is a pity, because he is making what appears to me to be a serious point.
The rise of the Nazis was abetted by well-meaning nice people who wanted only good things, such as law and order and 'schoolsnhospitals'. In just the same way, I'm sure that Schellnhuber's intentions are entirely honourable too - he's saving the planet after all. He just thinks that only way to do so involves taking us into a dictatorship, run by well-meaning nice people like him. He's a minority of course (although I'm sure there are others who share his views but don't voice them), but that's no reason not to point to the dangers. The price of liberty is, after all, eternal vigilance.
(Could commenters note, I will be ruthless about snipping comments that are rude/off topic/aggressive on this thread.)
Climatologist Tamsin Edwards tweets that she has no intention of taking over the world.
Besides, if she did, who would look after the cat?
Any German speakers want to read the whole WGBU report and confirm? Die Welt were clear that there was a call to limit democracy but it's possible this is down to interpretations and reading between the lines. The only specific instances raised were a new chamber for the German Parliament (chosen by lot) and a new EcoSecurity Council at the UN. Neither of these are obviously roads to ecodictatorship. Perhaps of more concern is the idea that people should give up their desires for material improvement, something that seems to me to be unachievable in a democracy. So is this where the comments about limiting democracy and ecodictatorship came from?