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.I don't agree with their goals, but I have to respect the way they protest.
That's pretty much the exact opposite of most people in my bubble. Sometimes it's quite interesting.I don't agree with their goals, but I have to respect the way they protest.
And what about the people who say that climate change exists, it is largely of natural origin but has been significantly accelerated by industrialization? I think that is the majority, around 80%.
Specifically: The opinion quoted above is of course allowed. It is just certainly wrong. And accordingly provokes opposition, which one then has to endure – the right to freedom of opinion is not the right to encounter no opposition.
If this majority should exist, it would simply be provably wrong. And if they think they could be right because there is diversity of opinions, 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 certainly wrong. And accordingly receives contradiction, which however must also be endured – the right to freedom of opinion is not the right to encounter no contradiction.
The warming of the last century has no identifiable natural driver.
- Sun: nothing, rather a slight decrease.
- CO2 from volcanoes: negligible
- Milankovitch cycle (this 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 planet’s heat emission into space and can quantify the effect of additional CO2.
That means: the global warming of the last century has nothing to do with natural climate changes, just as they actually always occurred. One fact has no connection with the other. Whoever links them is acting against logic and thus produces an allowed but nevertheless false opinion.
In my personal (and possibly wrong) opinion, the reason for maintaining this error in thinking is that the question of what “we” should do in view 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 – an ordeal that can be avoided if one doubts the factual situation one level deeper and uses one’s freedom of opinion for that.
Anyone who hasn't been in a deep sleep over the past 3 years has witnessed how science has been misused, 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.