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

Totally interesting that apparently very many people here are professional climate researchers.

After all the false models and figures of recent years, I have internalized the saying: "never trust a statistic you haven't falsified yourself" more than ever. And I do not presume to know what is going on with the climate. But as always, only the experts are asked and their studies published that take a certain direction. Others are no longer discussed.

I am in favor of hearing all opinions on all topics and believe the citizen is intelligent enough to form their own opinion. In reality, however, there is pre-filtering and forming one's own opinion is no longer possible.

I don't assume you mean the pandemic? Because no minority was right there. It was rather the overwhelming majority who trusted the recommendations of the Stiko that led us out of the pandemic, together with the time it takes to infect the rest and wait out the variants. The minority in this context was not right; they recklessly endangered other people and still expected applause for it.

I must also say, you too are allowed to have your opinion here, but unfortunately it completely contradicts the now well-known scientific facts and in no way makes you better than the climate change deniers.

I have to say, you are also allowed to have your opinion here, but unfortunately it completely contradicts the now well-known scientific facts and does not make you better in any way than the climate change deniers.

I am open to sources and evidence, please enlighten me. But serious sources, please, not the lateral thinkers' rumor mill. =)

To put it briefly: once someone lies, you don't believe them, even if this time they are telling the truth.

Anthropogenic global warming has been described and researched since the late 19th century, quantitatively modeled since the 1930s, and almost 100 years later most mistakes have already been made and corrected.

Moreover, even the "simple" models from the 1980s are still accurate today.

It cannot be compared to Corona, especially since virology is not physics.

Besides, "once someone lies" here is collective punishment for science as a whole – a ridiculous attitude, sorry. What have physicists done to you?

You cannot base a firm opinion about facts on distrust elsewhere; in what world is that logical?

I am open to sources and evidence, please enlighten me. But reputable sources, not the Querdenker grapevine. =)

I don't have to enlighten anyone, everyone can do that themselves ;). By now you can even find corresponding articles in the hate-&-incitement rag Spiegel. Otherwise, one of the reporters who uncovered the scam with intensive care beds, child vaccination, and political pressure on the STIKO was Tim Röhn (chief reporter Welt). But I warn you, knowing the facts could really shake up your worldview. In general, about the Querdenker grapevine (nice word), it is often made out to be worse than it is. If you want a lot of unfiltered information at first, there's no other or only very difficult way to get it. Anyone who wants to be informed needs both sides. There is enough dirt, not only on TG but also in the public broadcasters.

No, when it comes to scientific topics, I first want to hear the facts. One can then have different opinions about what to do with them. One is even allowed to believe that all scientists are lying; that just means adopting a fringe opinion. Scientific discourse works differently. Not everyone is allowed to just blurt out their thoughts and expect them to be generally recognized as expert knowledge. That was not the case even 100 years ago. There are scientific publishers and journals where serious research results are published as articles (and these are not PM, Spektrum or GEO, or even Der Spiegel). These articles go through a multi-stage peer review, meaning other scientists in the relevant field look at the results and especially the methodology and check whether everything has been conducted according to applicable standards. This is how the so-called scientific consensus gradually forms, based on more and more research results that are methodically correctly collected and repeatedly confirmed (through other observations, experiments, measurements, and tests). If then a particle physicist claims to have made the reactionary discovery regarding climate research that there is no human-caused climate change, they can try to publish their findings, but will fail in scientific journals and will then turn to social media and the like, where they will find fertile ground because people on average tend not to seek truth but rather confirmation of their preconceived opinions. When they then find it, they feel confirmed and stop searching. The exclusion of persons happens through the persons themselves, namely when they accept genuinely anti-social right-wing scum in their ranks for their legal and legitimate expression of opinion on the street. If the often honest citizens would show a clear edge there and exclude obviously anti-constitutional groups (which are clearly in the minority, I observed this myself in Berlin – but they are there!) from their demonstrations, mainstream and media criticism would not exist. That would be a message and that’s it. The processing of the coronavirus issue is just beginning. I doubt there are already clear findings in the context of the scientific processes described above by me. All data must first be reviewed and analyzed and then these investigations and conclusions go through peer review. Before that, one is still in the midst of discourse and is very far from a secured factual basis.