Climate science and energy policy dissenters may need to be prepared to get fined, may be sent to a mental institution or even imprisoned. German climate crazies are calling for it!
Solar industry lobby wants to punish climate emergency critics for sabotaging emergency measures
By Kalte Sonne (Translated/edited by P. Gosselin)
German public broadcaster Deutschlandfunk on December 25, 2019:
Climate scientist Johan Rockström thinks the declaration of a climate emergency is justified.
Rockström (Potsdam Institute Director):
The declaration of a “climate emergency” would make it possible to make really big decisions. …such as making things possible that are necessary but have not been considered realistic.“
This reminds in the diction of 24 March 1933, at that time the law was officially called: “Law to remedy the distress of the people and the Reich” and it served to abolish the Republic. Isn’t anyone suspicious?
What fits well here is an action of the solar industry lobby, which has made good business from the alleged climate catastrophe. Whoever criticizes the climate alarmism professionally is considered a troublemaker.
So it fits in well with the picture that the Solarenergie Förderverein Deutschland e.V. (Solar Energy Association of Germany) is calling for the punishment of critics on its website. The address of the site is here.
Here we read:
Wolf von Fabeck calls for punishment for those who trivialize the climate catastrophe:
Trivializing the climate catastrophe endangers the survival of mankind – do we have to accept this?
Why the trivializers cannot hide behind the fundamental right of freedom of expression
They even link to a PIK-alarm paper:
At the suggestion of the Fridays For Future demonstrators, Constance is now the first German city to declare a ‘climate emergency’ – a rather symbolic act – but one that shows what is needed. Mayor Burchardt explained that from now on all decisions to be taken by the city council must be assessed in terms of climate protection. At the same time, he called on the Federal Government to improve the legal framework for climate protection measures.
It is essential to ward off the danger decisively and to the best of our knowledge and belief, not only in Constance, but everywhere in Germany (everyone should first of all put their own house in order), and finally worldwide. In the case of climate catastrophe, the best knowledge is provided by the natural sciences, and not by those who trivialize it. What the trivializers do can be described as sabotage, and sabotage of emergency measures should be punished.”
[…]
A strong democracy must not accept this development. What is missing here is the legal threat of punishment within the Criminal Code – as already mentioned in the summary:
‘Anyone who plays down or denies the climate catastrophe in a way that is likely to disrupt, disparage or completely prevent the defense of the climate catastrophe under the Paris Climate Convention and its follow-up agreements will be punished with a fine of up to 300 days wages. In case of recurrence, the penalty is imprisonment.’
Such a threat of punishment in no way undermines the fundamental right to freedom of opinion. Also the freedom of opinion has, as already mentioned in the introduction, legal limits (Article 5, Paragraph 2, first half sentence German Law). For example, according to Paragraphs 185 to 187 of the German Criminal Code, insult, libel and slander are also sanctioned, because otherwise peaceful coexistence is not possible.”
Emergency laws, sabotage, punishment. This seemingly undemocratic argumentation is not entirely new in Germany. The last time it was heard was 80 years ago.
Note: The German Solar Energy Lobby also remarks:
Note: It is not the misled ones who should be punished, but the disinformers, the instigators, the authors and distributors of the fake news.”
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Cult behaviour, cult enforcement.
Troublemakers? They’re wrecking Germany, again.
Sobering & disappointing. I would have thought the German people would have learned some valuable lessons in that 1932-45 period…
This behaviour bring to mind the concept of repeat offenders. For example, women who repeatedly have relationships with abusive men.
Climate change is cover for the globalist agenda .
Always has been since at least 1991 .
As they grow more desperate their true colors are shown and they look
roll out communist gulag strategies for non cool – aid drinkers .
Trump has derailed their plans and they are going nuts .
Most Americans see it now and the extreme MSM bias is unavoidable .
Free speech is an extremely important as part of person liberty, however this is secondary to what is most important. With the free exchange of ideas, opinion migrates to the most solid of concepts. The climate activists know this and that is why they oppose free speech. They have never had to worry about it because the mainstream media is nothing but a propaganda machine for that cause. The current climate emergency is based on the IPCC model RCP8.5. This predicts 5 degrees of warming by 2100 and is based on unrealistic assumptions such as a ten fold increase in the use coal. Model INMCM5 on the other hand matches real world data very well and only predicts warming of 1.4 degrees. A free exchange of ideas would obviously favor INMCM5, but a warming of 1.4 degrees does not support the radical agendas the activists want.
Thank you for making us aware of this matter. I sent the following e-mail to the above mentioned solar company. I did not experience the III Reich, but I have been well acquainted with the DDR. This smacks of totalitarianism, we have to resist it at all cost.
“Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
gerade traf ich auf einer amerikanischen Webseite auf einen Artikel über Ihre Vorschläge, sogenannte “Klimazweifler” ruhigzustellen oder sogar zu bestrafen. Auf der Webseite wurde diese angestrebte Einschränkung der freien Meinungsäußerung mit der Entwicklung im deutschen Reich von März 1933 verglichen. Ich muß sage, daß sie damit völlig recht haben. Obwohl der menschenverursachte Klimawandel weder wissenschaftlich bewiesen, noch von dem Großteil der Wissenschaftler unterstützt wird (der 97% Konsensus ist ein Mythos), wird diese neue westliche Religion jedem aufgezwungen und duldet keine Widerrede.
1933 war ich noch nicht auf der Welt, aber die DDR habe ich ausreichend kennengelernt, um die Meinungsfreiheit als höchste Wichtigkeit in einer Demokratie anzusehen. “Linientreue” darf es in einer Demokratie nicht geben, die davon lebt, daß jeder ein Anrecht auf seine Meinung hat, und sie auch frei äußern darf (es sei denn, er hat es auf die Abschaffung der Demokratie abgesehen). Dürfen wir dann auch nicht mehr singen: “Die Gedanken sind frei”?
Ich möchte sie höflichst darum bitten, Ihre Forderungen zu überdenken und Ihre Meinung zu ändern. Sonst sieht es schlecht mit Deutschland aus.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Julia McMaster
Julia, you were really quite polite – I must say, I honestly admire your restraint and mildness. I believe they didn’t deserve your thoughtful and reserved admonishment.
I would probably have already called them names when greeting them and then I would have proceeded to ask which lunatic asylum they escaped from or if they were actually just pond scum that got lost.
You may think that in this way all chance at dialogue would be lost straight away, and that is admittedly true, it would be. But I’m not sure if one should even attempt to reason with such odious armchair authoritarians. They have already disqualified themselves by publicly uttering such repulsive demands – i.e., there is really nothing to discuss with such people. Telling these wannabe-Stalins where to get off should be enough.