ᐅ Installation of a Gas Heating System in New Construction 2023/2024

Bausparfuchs schrieb:

I don’t agree with their goals, but I have to respect the way they are protesting.

That’s almost exactly the opposite of what most people in my circle think. It’s quite interesting sometimes.

Bookstar87 schrieb:

And what about the people who say climate change exists, that it is mostly natural in origin but has been significantly accelerated by industrialization? I think that's the majority, around 80%.

If such a majority should exist, then they would simply be factually wrong. And if they believe they could be right just because there is a diversity of opinions, then these 80% have not understood the difference between opinion and facts (the findings on which opinions should be based).

Specifically: The opinion quoted above is, of course, allowed. It’s just very likely incorrect. And it will receive opposing arguments that one must also be able to tolerate – the right to freedom of expression is not the right to face no opposition.

The warming of the last century has no identifiable natural driver.

- Sun: None, rather a slight decrease.
- CO2 from volcanoes: negligible
- Milankovitch cycles (part of the natural variation of Earth’s orbit): known, measured, trend rather toward cooling.

At the same time, we precisely understand how CO2 affects the planet’s heat radiation into space and can quantify the impact of additional CO2.

In other words: The global warming of the last century has nothing to do with natural climate variations as they have actually always existed. One fact is in no way connected to the other. Those who connect them are acting against logic and thus produce a view that, while allowed, is still incorrect.

In my personal (and possibly wrong) opinion, the reason this misconception persists is that the question of what “we” should do in view of this is not a scientific question that can be answered. Societal goal setting can be based on scientific findings but is by definition non-scientific itself. This discussion is therefore endlessly difficult – a difficulty that can be avoided by questioning the facts directly on a lower level and using one’s freedom of opinion for that.

Exactly! Quote from the well-known University of Hamburg in this field: “Climate change is happening; here in Europe as well. For example, since 1880, the global average sea level has risen by 25 centimeters (10 inches). This also affects Hamburg: The Hanseatic city has just raised its dikes by 80 centimeters (31 inches). The increase in extreme weather events such as heavy rain, heatwaves, and droughts in recent years is also a consequence of climate change. The reason we notice these relatively little in our daily lives is due to our prosperity: Unlike poorer countries, we can protect ourselves by building dikes or compensating for crop failures with food imports from abroad.” Nothing more to add!

chand1986 schrieb:

Specifically: The opinion quoted above is of course allowed. It is simply probably wrong. And it naturally receives opposing views, which one then has to accept – the right to freedom of opinion is not the right to face no opposition.

That is the crucial point I often find missing in this discussion, regardless of the main topic.
There are small minorities who feel socially excluded because they face a lot of opposition to their opinions. Of course, they are entitled to their views, even if based on verifiably false information, but this opposition from people with different opinions is also part of a free society.

The perceived exclusion probably happens more passively than actively. But the sum of my opinions is, after all, how I am perceived by others. Personally, I prefer to spend my free time with people whose opinions I can generally relate to. You want to have conversations, and I don’t enjoy talking with people whose views I consider uninformed or with whom I cannot identify. And if you openly distance yourself from the “mainstream” on various topics, the logical consequence is that the mainstream might no longer invite you to birthday parties. ^^

chand1986 schrieb:

If such a majority were to exist, they would simply be demonstrably wrong. And if they believe they are right because there is a diversity of opinions, then these 80% have not understood the difference between opinion and facts (the findings on which opinions should be based).

Specifically: The opinion quoted above is of course allowed. It is just very likely wrong. And accordingly receives opposition, which one must accept — the right to freedom of opinion is not the right to avoid any contradiction.

The warming over the last century has no identifiable natural driver.

- Sun: None, rather a slight decrease.
- CO2 from volcanoes: negligible
- Milankovitch cycles (part of the natural variations of Earth’s orbit): known, measured, tending towards cooling.

At the same time, it is well understood how CO2 affects the planet’s heat loss to space and the effect of additional CO2 can be quantified.

This means: The warming of the last century has nothing to do with natural climate variations, as they have actually always occurred. One fact has no connection to the other. Those who link them are being illogical and produce an opinion that, while permitted, is still incorrect.

In my personal (and possibly wrong) opinion, the reason this misconception persists is that the question of what “we” should do in light of this is not a question science can answer. Societal goals can be based on scientific findings but are by definition not scientific themselves. This discussion is therefore endlessly difficult — a struggle that can be avoided if one rejects the facts outright on a deeper level and uses freedom of opinion for that purpose.

Sounds like you really know what you're talking about. What you write could be true or not. I even tend to think that what you say is probably correct.

The opposing side is capital and ideology. Anyone who hasn’t been in deep sleep the past three years has witnessed how science was misused, large parts of the media failed, and so-called “facts” were completely wrong. A minority turned out to be right but was heavily slandered for it.

To put it briefly: once someone lies, they are not believed, even when they tell the truth.

Bookstar87 schrieb:

Anyone who hasn’t been in a deep sleep for the past three years has witnessed how science has been misused, large parts of the media failed, and so-called “facts” were completely wrong. A minority was proven right but was heavily denounced for it.

I assume you’re not referring to the pandemic here? Because in that case, the minority was definitely not proven right.
It was rather the overwhelming majority who followed the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Vaccination (Stiko), along with time allowing the rest of the population to develop immunity and for variants to settle, who ultimately guided us out of the pandemic. The minority in this context was not correct; they recklessly endangered others and even expected applause for it.