Installation of a gas heating system in new construction 2023/2024

  • Erstellt am 2023-04-11 14:47:10

mayglow

2023-04-27 23:47:12
  • #1
That's pretty much the exact opposite of most people in my bubble. Sometimes it's quite interesting.
 

chand1986

2023-04-28 05:19:02
  • #2

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

Specifically: The above-cited opinion is of course allowed. It is just certainly wrong. And accordingly receives opposition, which one must then also endure - the right to freedom of opinion is not the right not to encounter any opposition.

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

- Sun: Nothing, rather a slight decrease.
- CO2 from volcanoes: negligible
- Milankovitch cycle (that is part of the natural fluctuation of the Earth's orbit): known, measured, tends rather towards cooling.

At the same time, we know exactly how CO2 affects the heat emission of the planet into space and can quantify the effect of additional CO2.

This means: The global warming of the last century has nothing to do with natural climate changes as they have actually always occurred. One fact has no connection to the other. Whoever links them does something against logic and thus produces an opinion that is allowed but still false.

In my personal (and possibly wrong) opinion, the reason for maintaining this misconception is that the question of what “we” should do in the face of this is not a scientifically answerable question. Societal goals can be based on scientific findings but are by definition themselves non-scientific. This discussion is therefore infinitely tedious - a tedium one can avoid if one doubts the factual basis on a deeper level and uses one’s freedom of opinion for that.
 

Buschreiter

2023-04-28 06:31:14
  • #3
That's right! Quote from the renowned University of Hamburg in this field: "Climate change is here; also here in Europe. For example, since 1880, the global average sea level has risen by 25 centimeters. This also affects Hamburg: The Hanseatic city has just raised its dikes by 80 centimeters. The increases in extreme weather events such as heavy rainfall, heat waves, and drought periods in recent years are also consequences of climate change. That we notice them comparatively little in everyday life is a result of our prosperity: Unlike poorer countries, we can protect ourselves by building dikes or compensating crop failures through food imports from abroad." Nothing more to add!
 

kati1337

2023-04-28 07:41:09
  • #4


That is the crucial point I often miss in this discussion, no matter what the core topic is.
There are extreme minorities who feel socially excluded because they meet a lot of opposition with their opinion. Naturally, they are allowed to have their opinion, even if it is based on provable false information, but this opposition from people with a different opinion is just as much part of the liberal system.

The perceived exclusion presumably happens more passively than actively. But the sum of my opinions is simply how I am perceived by other people. And personally, I prefer to spend my free time with people who tend to hold opinions that I can relate to. After all, you want to have a conversation, and I don’t like to talk to people who I consider uneducated based on their opinions or who I cannot identify with. And if you openly distance yourself from the "mainstream" with your opinions over several topics, then the logical consequence is that the mainstream might no longer invite you to birthday parties. ^^
 

Bookstar87

2023-04-28 08:12:56
  • #5

Sounds like you really know your stuff. What you write may be true, or not. I even tend to consider what you say as probable.

The opposing side is capital and ideology. Anyone who hasn’t been in a deep sleep the last 3 years has witnessed how science has been abused, large parts of the media have failed, and supposed “facts” were completely wrong. A minority turned out to be right but was heavily denounced for it.

To put it briefly: once someone lies, they are not believed even if they speak the truth this time.
 

kati1337

2023-04-28 08:33:16
  • #6


I don't assume you mean the pandemic by that? Because in that case, certainly no minority turned out to be right.
It was rather the vast majority who trusted the recommendations of the STIKO that led us out of the pandemic, along with the time needed to infect the rest and ride out the variants. The minority in that context was not right; they recklessly endangered other people and even expected applause for it.
 
Oben