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

And that with radiators the hydraulics play a lesser role anyway, the thermostat does the work.

Off topic: There are now smart thermostats that network with each other and automatically carry out the hydraulic balancing. This could be interesting for heat pump converters in old buildings with radiators.

I could imagine that it might be useful for farmers with a corresponding livestock operation to operate a biogas heating system. But then immediately as a biogas combined heat and power plant.

Some people have wood businesses or forests at home, so wood chips or pellets are also interesting there. If you want to be self-sufficient as a prepper because the state is increasingly failing in many areas, then a heat pump can only be operated in winter with an extremely large amount of photovoltaics. Liquid gas or pellets have storage capability.

Personally, I would only install a heat pump, although mine had many technical problems from the start and the optimization also came from me, because HVAC technicians often have no idea and do SIBN. Then you need 50% more electricity and the heating system breaks down after 5 to 10 years.

Really interesting that apparently so many people here are professional climate researchers.

After all the false models and numbers in recent years, I have fully internalized the saying: "Never trust any statistics you didn't fake yourself." And I do not presume to know what is going on with the climate. But as always, only 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 consider the citizen intelligent enough to form their own opinion. In reality, however, there is pre-filtering and an independent formation of opinion is no longer possible.

Just be concrete: Science says that the temperature is rising historically fast due to human CO2 emissions. Right? Wrong?

Evidence includes knowledge about the properties of the CO2 molecule, direct temperature measurements, and spectroscopy of the atmosphere from both the ground and above (weather balloons, satellites).

Up to this point, just measurements, no models yet.

And then simply the belief that the 1st law of thermodynamics must hold true...

The models are then used for something else: to show IF-THEN scenarios for the future – with an uncertainty range.

Regarding dissenting opinions within science: They are not heard because they sometimes keep repeating things that were refuted partly 100 years ago.
It is again the fallacy that freedom of opinion would have something to lose in science: NO. Cleanly refuted stuff gets thrown out. That is why they have no weight: They have no evidence for themselves, but a lot against them.

Everything you write is true, but only in an idealized world. And we do not live in such a world. The IPCC report is an example that is often used as a basis. Such documents are often quoted one-sidedly or manipulated.

In 2020, during Corona, it was known that masks cannot prevent any infections in the field, only in the lab. That was the consensus in science; even conspiracy theorist Drosten held this opinion at that time. Due to political pressure, the "facts" were different in 2021. Studies were manipulated here, which did not distinguish between the lab and field situations. Meanwhile, the field data is available, and it is known that masks were pointless.

That's all true what you write, but only in an idealized world. And we simply do not live in such a world. The IPCC report is an example, which is often used as a basis. Such documents are often cited one-sidedly or manipulated. In 2020, during Corona, it was known that masks cannot prevent any infections in the field, only in the laboratory. That was the consensus in science; even conspiracy theorist Drosten held this opinion at the time. Due to political pressure, the "factual situation" was different in 2021. Studies were manipulated here that did not distinguish exactly this laboratory and field situation. Meanwhile, the field data exist and it is known that masks were pointless.

That's really nonsense. You're at the end of a game of telephone if that's your position: alternative facts instead of just an alternative opinion on the same facts. First, FFP2 masks have always reduced the risk of infection (not: eliminated it). Second, the IPCC report is very cautious compared to science communication in the media and rather conservative in everything. How do I know this? I have read it. Not listened to what someone from someone who once heard something about it said. And I firmly assume that principles like the main laws of thermodynamics are not just for an idealized world. This "it could also be completely different" is simply to be excluded on the subject of global warming. Here one is not groping around in a statistical fog.