A pseudoargument as a testimony of hair-minded thinking: how ideological delusion turns off the self-critical mind
I. The backgrounds
1.1 standard pseudoargument
Under the supposed "Arguments" Against the urgency of the seizure of appropriately suitable measures against the consequences of a human climate change and thus indirectly against a forced energy transition, in the debate of Fruhe or later, almost as safe as the Amen in the church a pseudo-argument appears: "Climate change has always been …"
Basically, this is a jerking speech argument, which indirectly admitted, which has not been denied even more than long time ago: that the climate is currently exposed. This point of view is now an occasional in view of the ever clearer data and factual situation. You do not want to make yourself laughing with an obvious counteractical attitude. Only to recognize the climate warming, which was previously translated, without the honest thing, to have girdrrt to be fruher fundamentally, is at least an indication of incredibility and lack of seriosity and underpinned that this fraction often does not work in truth about climate change, but Therefore, to tore the energy transition.
1.2 climate change as a hull debate against energy transition
Exactly this fact requires a stronger consciousness: the denial of a [man-made] climate change is not an end in itself, but means for the purpose: the denial faction is I.D.R. Therefore, to brake an energy transition from conventional and nuclear energy carriers to renewable, torped, undermine or even prevent.
A sufficiently competent energy transition counteracts the business models of corporations and industries, which pay the most influential worldwide: Olconzerne and the coal and automotive industry. These have sponsored lobby organizations decades (Z.B Eike) that reflect against better knowledge of human climate change.
What does energy transition mean? With regard to the criticism or reserved against the energy transition, it is important to differentiate between the concept / idea and actually political implementation.
1.3.1 The political practice
At the politically fully protected energy transition, claim authorized criticism is attached. Telepolis is full of it. Rightly. If in this article of "energy transition" The speech is, then not these politically almost maximum incompetent "Real existing" Energy turnaround meant, but the following.
1.3.2 The concept
An energy transition away from limited and dirty fossil and nuclear energy carriers to sustainable and clean renewables not only in the power supply, but the entire primary energy requirement as well as transport and warm generation, for which there is beyond the air conditioning enough good reason, had to be designed completely differently.
A sufficiently competent managed was an energy transition in the worst case just as expensive as one "Keep it up" – However, in any case, enormous benefits for economics and workplaces generate. More likely, however, is that such an energy transition was even significantly cheaper because the exorbitant subsidies for fossil Start nuclear energy carrier. The concept extremely simplified / turmed (and only the power supply regarding):
188.8.131.52 massive EE expansion
Sufficiently strong expansion of renewable energies, wherever make sense: also small hydropower or small wind power] systems. Removal of all EE-expanding hindering senseless or even counterproductive provisions (eg.B Occupation of self-consumption, obligation to tender or 10H rule and other meaningless expansion prevention provisions)
Construction of a Power2Gas infrastructure, which in "surplus times" Optionally produced hydrogen or methane. The mechanization should preferably take place due to a much better efficiency in biogas plants. Thus, the memory problem is solved and negative electricity prices of the past.
184.108.40.206 CHP network
In EE electricity times, the methane or hydrogen used by Power2 gas is previously synthesized by an intelligently regulated network of decentralized and power-controlled fuel cell CHPs, which opposes the status quo carrier coarse power plants of a "Dinosaur technology" Bring huge advantages, highly efficient in electricity and warm jerking (sector coupling).
Ii. Climate change has always been
2.1 consensus in the matter
This fact will be submitted by no serious scientist or climate researcher in agreement. Everyone is aware of this. So what should this trivial finding, about the general consensus?
2.2 wrong conclusion
From the fact that early climate change were natural, more or less explicitly insulinoses that it also has the current natural origin. The goods in the same way as the claim that current forest binders could not be laid by arsonists because it has always given natural forest bands. A classic attraction inadmissible generalization.
Sometimes one "And then the world did not go down" committed. Only: Nobody claimed the opposite! No Serious climatologist claims that climate heat was "destroy the earth". As well as? Every woman that climate warmers can not destroy planets.
ERGO: It is a classic seemed poor in the form of a straw man. This is a bit refuted what nobody claims. Surfish is the right, but has not contributed nothing to the cause in truth, but only operated recipient replacement.
2.4 No need for action?
In very rare traps is then a bit followed in the sense of "… and man survived that". The implications behind it is: "What should the whole hysteria? Is not bad – a need for action is ‘ie’ not given". But the actual correct?
While "Climate change has always been" An undisputed fact is (2.1), is it involved "Then the current unproblematic is also" To a deeply fragile "conclusion". why?
2.5 Framework conditions
To what extent do the current framework differ from those of earlier climate change?
In no relevant ARA, an air conditioning of the mobs has occurred quickly.
In any times relevant to humanity, D.H. Not in the last 11000 years, the climatically averaged temperature was as high as now: the four last years (2015-18) were the warmest since the start of measurement.
From the notorious climate change (MG), this is denied by reference to an EIKE graphic. What to hold is from prof. Rahmstorf among question 2 exposed.
220.127.116.11 "Above Deadly Threshold"
Wide parts of Africa and Sudamerikas will become uninhabitable due to temperatures where the human proteist is denatured and a life unemployed. There and in certain other areas, the temperatures are lying beyond a dead threshold.
2.5.3 global scope
Early climatic fluctuations occurred mainly regionally and at different times. According to a study by Swiss researchers, in contrast to early, temperatures all over the world and at the same time rise.
2.5.4 World Volkening
However, by far the most important facts is that during no climate warming previously, the earth was just as strongly populated as it was currently. In the year 0, the global volcanization of less than 200 million, in further resuming times was considerably less. Currently, however, over 7.7 billion. People on Earth (about factor 40 compared to the year 0).
18.104.22.168 crusty metropolitan centers
Already, the sea rise predicted by climate models is already recorded. However, this will continue when appropriate counterparts are taken. Coarse Kustenstadte like Hamburg or Bremen are permanently under water. The Netherlands will be flooded roughly. According to a recent study of the Earth Institute of American Columbia University, the 2.75 billion people in the near of the sea will be living in 2025.
What is indispensable, is also the same with the criticism "Climate protection" which is that the climate is only a mean and neither this nor the climate is love. However, further climate warming becomes civilization, as we still know, destroys:
The climate warming is landscapes, where there are currently several hundreds of millions of up to one billion people, transform into uninhabitable regions. These people survive people will sit down in motion and move to other regions where life is still possible. Due to the high world title, however, can not simply sufficiently sufficient in a long migration process in a long migration process in a long migration process "free areas" talk.
If only a few million escapeons cause serious social and political distortions, then what will be going on when the Europeans are confronted with hundreds of millions of escape lures?
Climate protection So the seizure of targeted measures (namely an energy transition, as under 1.3.2 torn) to avert the devastating consequences of further human climate heat for civilization.
So correctly the statement "Climate change has always been" Also, it may – so missed it is as implicit "argument", that there was a need for action for action because humanity had survived this too sooner. Because the framework conditions are significantly different in multiple terms:
- In no climate change before, temperatures rose in so short periods,
- In no terms of climate change relevant to humanity, the temperatures increased to such high, sometimes mutual temperatures and above all:
- Of no attempting climate warming, only well-to-day people were affected, as is currently a ground of around 8 billion. People Bevolkert is. This is problematic in duplication: not only that much more people from regions with temperatures "Above Deadly Threshold" but also the escape targets are unevenly densely populated.
That the current climate heat solely gives a different situation due to the extremely high world-violence, because in contrast to early not enough "free country" exist, in which can be drawn, affected the healthy sense. If the pseudoargument is made to the defiance of this rarely unintelligent pseudoargument, this is evidenced by what abyss can lead to memorial ideological veneer.
Everyone sufficiently honest person who has the courage to use his own mind (Kant), actually had to sink in front of shame in the ground if the reference to early climate change as "argument" is abused to make a need for action obsolete. In that sense, everyone himself asks themselves, who tends to the title-giving pseudoargument, whether he is not actually for such a testimony intellectual total failure too too bad.
The author is Dipl-Ing. Mechanical engineering, vintage 64. It is neither directly nor indirect nationwide energy transition or climate research (also in the way all people benefit from a healthier, less burdened environment).