Whoever (whether as a scientist or not, makes no difference) holds the opinion that A - D are incorrect, must prove it.
The assumption that man-made climate change does not exist does not stem from a rejection of scientific evidence per se, but for many results from an anti-attitude caused by the way political and economic leaders deal with scientific findings. This ultimately leads to a rejection of the scientific basis. Not out of stupidity, but out of outrage and helplessness.
One must admit that preaching water and drinking wine frequently applies to many groups represented in the media, and many CO2 targets and levies are rendered absurd by the behavior of these groups. Prominent examples are extravagant lifestyles while at the same time demanding sacrifice and ignoring huge amounts of CO2 that could be saved through behavioral changes, etc., while simultaneously the majority is called upon to save on all fronts and is burdened with increasing costs.
The resulting rejection of the politically acting and economically powerful by more and more people then leads to a rejection of all measures. To legitimize this, even to themselves, the scientific basis is then questioned -> Boom, "corona deniers" (although few of these people deny the existence – only the effectiveness of the measures).
Example Corona:
I also believe that the federal government (and also the opposition, the state governments, etc.) made a lot of mistakes during the corona period, groups of people were unjustly defamed, (even constructive) criticism was ignored, and mistakes were not admitted and still are not. People who personally experienced this exclusion found like-minded individuals in corresponding forums / bubbles. The agitation of politics and media only reinforced their attitude, but will lead only to division and not to agreement or better understanding.
Example CO2:
As long as we live in a global market economy in which each participant pursues their own interests, countries with oil and gas reserves will exploit them as long as profits are made. This applies especially if the respective national economy is essentially based on the extraction and sale of raw materials. If some industrial nations reduce consumption, the price falls, and other countries that previously lacked the financial means can buy cheaper. Ergo, production / extraction and thus CO2 emissions do not decrease when we consume less; it is only shifted. This is not a valid argument for not reducing emissions, but it is neither addressed by the media nor by politicians. This is known and recognized both in economics and among climate researchers – but it is not publicly addressed or only mentioned marginally.
Such failures are gladly seized upon by the AfD and others, who then try to delegitimize climate policy with it. Their solution, however, is not to tackle this problem, but to abandon it altogether.
Anyone who wants to prevent division and bubble formation cannot simply defame but must address the basis of the complaints and work out solutions for everyone here – not cancel.
Sorry for the mountain of text :)
