UKH

Given the antagonistic content of many of UKC's politically oriented threads, I found this article rather illuminating:

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/polarisation-during-the-general-election-campaig...

It illustrates how we typically caricature people with opposing political viewpoints. There's also a Telegraph article here: (Behind a paywall).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/12/09/three-electionswe-may-end-t...

TL;DR:

The NHS

• 90% or more of the two main parties’ supporters, as well as both Leavers and Remainers, all agree the NHS is crucial to British society and we must do everything we can to maintain it.
• But people who don’t identify with these groups significantly underestimate levels of support for this view among them. The biggest gap in perception is for the Tories: non-Conservatives guess 56% of Tories hold this view of the NHS, when 90% actually do.

Climate change denial

• People significantly overestimate the proportion of Leavers, Remainers, Conservatives and Labour supporters who agree that global warming is an expensive hoax.
• The guesses are around twice as high as the actual level for each group: for example, 21% of Leave supporters think global warming is a hoax, but the average guess from non-Leavers is 40%. More people think climate change is genuine than we realise.

Leaving the EU without a deal

• People are more accurate at guessing levels of support for a no-deal Brexit among the four groups.
• However, those who do not identify with the Labour Party overestimate the proportion of Labour supporters who favour a no-deal Brexit by 11 percentage points, guessing 28% when the reality is 17%.

I find it realy scary that 20% of leave voters (10% of those who, voted) thing global warming is a hoax and that 17% of Labour voters favour no deal. I would have estimated lower on both. As for the 10% of tories and the NHS, the problem is the likes of Raab, Patel Rees Mogg and Truss are tory ministers. 

Well, of course you can also be *too* generous to your political opponents...

Many, myself included, think plenty of environmental activists are as much motivated by political goals in opposition to my own as they are with actual global warming.  Likewise, celebrities telling us to fly less, as they hop on their private jets, doesn't exactly make the movement believable.

So when presented with surveys asking for a binary response to whether global warming is true or false, it shouldn't really surprise that some would answer false - even if they fully understand that increased greenhouse gas emissions will likely warm the planet.  There are enough falsehoods circulating in the activist community to warrant a certain percentage declaring a hoax, even if they are fully informed on the science.

On the question of polarisation, what scares me is the apparent ignorance of one side of the spectrum that they are actually polarised.  It's entirely acceptable to label conservatives "cvnts", for a band at Glastonbury to have a song called "Kill Tory Scum", yet to still claim to be the good guys and to represent balance.

If one celeb flying around using their media profile prevents 100 non-celebs flying then that is a net win.
 

This is not meant as an automatic defence of every celeb as undoubtably there are hypocrites and virtue signallers among them, but in isolation this has been a dumb argument since before people were saying it about Al Gore. 

Frankly, this is the bit I find terrifying. If you asked me this question, I'd be estimating that outside of the USA only maybe less than 5% or people thought global warming is a hoax. Apparently I give people too much credit.

This idea that your perception of hypocrisy among a small number of 'activists' somehow invalidates an entire field of science is ridiculous.

You could have mentioned that Massive Attack and Coldplay have both stopped touring until they can do it without emitting net carbon. I guess others will follow.

It really isn't. You are very much in a bubble, just not sure who with.

I'm amazed that you managed to read the original post and then reply with this without a hint of irony.

At last, some self-awareness... 😄

...if only 😢.

I think the above is perfectly acceptable, there are very good, valid reasons for it to be so.

Since Johnson came to prominence, I've had a growing hatred for Conservatives.

Have you heard his response on being quizzed about the child at Leeds hospital?
The guy is beyond the pale!

Which falsehoods would they be? I take a keen interest in things environmental, and can't bring any to mind. Potentially I've absorbed them? I await you listing a few of them with interest.

Full marks to them for offsetting the carbon caused by their arena audiences travel to the gigs. 

That's right Pan, polarised means one side only and it is the other side, not your side.

/s

I don't know how many falsehoods there are but a fair amount of stuff is a bit misleading at face value. One example is all the stuff about beef being bad is either based on global averages or worst case, ie the kind of farming causing deforestation of the rainforest. In reality the impacts of UK grown meat are a fraction of the global averages as there is no deforestation and a lot of it is grass fed. When assessing the impacts of personal choices it makes it a bit hard! 

If by "Conservatives" you mean the wider definition of anyone who votes Tory on Thursday then no, you are wrong, and it is not acceptable. 

You've said that murdering political opponents is OK.  You might want to re-think that.

It does, Pan Ron was talking about falsehoods, though, which is something one can't post without something in mind, I would have thought? Or else one is straying into using hyperbole, which is seldom helpful. One way in which beef may be a contributor towards deforestation is through the consumption of soya - during the winter potentially. I read that poultry, pigs and farmed fish combined account for 90% of soya used in UK farming, and dairy accounts for 3%, leaving something of a question mark over what accounts for the remaining 7%. Compared to European farming, less soya is used thanks to our grassy landscapes however.

I wouldn't have put it that way, but the main difference between how activists present climate science and how scientists do it is that activists will tend to present the worst-case scenarios as the most likely, or even certain, outcome. Scientists are typically more circumspect. If you use Twitter, Dr Tamsin Edwards (@flimsin) posts on the subject regularly. This blog entry is worth reading - 

https://blogs.plos.org/models/the-future-will-be-both-better-and-worse-than...

It depends what ‘climate change is a hoax’ means. If it means ‘is not happening’ then 20% of leavers sounds about right. If it means ‘is not being caused by man’ then I agree that that is surprisingly low. If it means ‘won’t be as bad as we’re being told’ then it’s astonishingly low.

IME there’s a big link between CC deniers and Leave enthusiasts.

jcm

Not sure that's what I'm saying.

Rather, if you are going to poll people and only give them the option of agreeing or disagreeing with something, you might need to consider whether you questions means the same thing to everyone who answers.

In this case, the issue being asked about is quite clearly being used as a vehicle for other political goals (from Greta to XR, they say so themselves).  If your answer is then going to be used to describe society at large, I can understand why people might just register some sort of "fvck-you" response.

It isn't acceptable?

Maybe don't tell me that.  Try talking to Lusk or a great many other contributors.

Where to start.  I could give specific examples of every quote coming from the movement but I'd be here all day.  The falsehoods range from XR's certain belief that capitalism is the problem to the doomsday predictions of the planet become uninhabitable and us "only having 10 years to act".

All well and good.  The problem is, everyone seems to be feeding themselves exclusion clauses. 

For the celebs (and a lot of my lefty friends) immediate action is required now....but the overseas holidays (and lucrative rope-access work on oil rigs) is allowed to continue.  The vegetarians still get to eat fish.  Driving to the crag?  That's of course allowed. 

Basically, people are giving up stuff they can easily surrender (had enough foreign holidays, now have kids so they are less convenient...presto, we're now activists as we have "chosen" to fly less).   Very few people seem to be doing anything that impacts their environmental footprint to a degree that would actually cause serious inconvenience or discomfort.  But there is sure as hell a lot of finger-pointing at "other" people.

 Coldplay have .... stopped touring until they can do it without emitting net carbon. 

So it's not all bad news from Climate Change then? 

Yep, you've nailed it... 

No, that sort of language would get you banned from CPL meetings.

Ok I see, you're idea of what is entirely acceptable to one side of the political spectrum is based on selected posts from a male dominated climbing forum (and probably other similar forum or FB groups).

Bloody hell.  You've said something I agree with (Are you sure it's not also the Left's fault?).

I think a more useful approach would be to stop finger pointing (everyone pretty much in the developed world is way over their carbon budget), and simply start reducing CO2 use on an individual level and support governments that aim to do likewise on a national level.  It all counts, and reductions now are better than in the future.  

 What have you come across which makes you question the ten years guesstimate?*

https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12131.doc.htm

*Considering this UN report which says that the next 11 years are critical...

Edit: A link would be interesting.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48488732

Imagine if a comedian, band, or anyone, from the other side of the political spectrum was billed to play to a crowd of several hundred thousand people.   

The "we are incredibly saddened that the attention this booking has received has caused such upset and negativity towards such a peaceful festival" and "we in no way condone violence" statement would be considered a strong enough statement of condemnation?  Or mealy-mouthed?

Not saying I think they should even have been pulled, but this talk of "polarisation", as if each side is treated equally, is a joke.

The language, portrayal, and misrepresentation, of one side of UK's society, the venom that gets targetted at Brexit/conservative voters, is becoming insane.  

There was an entire thread here incredulous to why, despite knowing no Boris supporters, somehow the Tories are headed for an election victory.  There is a bubble here and the Left seems clueless to how deeply embedded in it they are. 

‘kin LOL. I see any chance of understanding  the other and showing even an iota of empathy lasted all of 11 minutes before descending into the usual UKC pile on.

WTF is wrong with you people. Why do you feel it necessary to behave so appallingly to people who disagree with your opinions. For nearly 4 years some of you have been spewing your bile on here. Here’s news for ya. It isn’t making you or anyone else happier.

I know I’m no angel myself, but I’m always willing to give people a chance to present their views - until they start with the insults. All many of you want to do is shutdown anyone who might challenge your ideology. I’m sure some of you are doing it to collect the “likes” and the resultant dopamine micro-hits.

Some of you (not all) are the new puritans and burners of heretics.

What do you find insulting in the OP? 

Nothing is wrong with the OP. In fact, I very much approve of it. But I think it was an opportunity to build bridges that was wasted.

I clicked on your response, and found that it goes straight to the OP. The OP seems to be a copy and paste of some findings of a study - what's there to find a problem with in that? Is it the findings of the study you're not sure about?

The Daily Telegraph isn't meant to be a left wing paper, not like the Guardian or Observer, or The Morning Star....

I think that if your perception is coming entirely from a left-leaning Climbing forum in the UK, that it is possibly slightly skewed. It would not be difficult to find some dark and not so dark corners of the internet where venom is targeted in the opposite direction.

The whole point of the survey linked to in the original post, which I can only conclude that you missed, was that these perceptions are invariably wrong.

I didn’t know who else to respond to. Like I said, I think it was a wasted opportunity.

If you ask people a question and it's well phrased, unambiguous and unbiased, then you accept the answer. That implies that there should be a full set available answers - they should cover all the potential answers and separate them meaningfully; if 'f*ck you' is one of those then there needs to be somewhere to put that in your statistics and a way of dealing with that answer as a response to the question.

You may want to politicise the question after the event, I suggest that betrays bad faith.

Oh dear, I sound like I'm talking about the EU membership referendum again.

So what should the op have said to build bridges? 

It has nothing to do with planetmarshall per se. I was referring to a multitude of UKCers (many of whom have posted on this thread) who treat people they don’t agree with appallingly.

My initial reply was to the OP, so as not to single out anyone in particular. If you don’t understand that then I’m afraid that’s your problem, I can’t explain it much more clearly.

https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12131.doc.htm 1

What other examples do you have, considering the UN says we have 11 years to stop runaway climate change from happening? Can you list 2 more other than the 10 years one?

There's no climate activists who've ever said that the world would become uninhabitable for everybody by the way, which is what your example could be taken to mean without more detail.

Direct quote from the link you posted

The Jo Cox Foundation said the language was "completely abhorrent".

"We're seeing a legitimising and normalising of harmful words and actions," it said.

You have nothing that can justify the completely ridiculous statement you made on Monday (re-posted below)

Two little know bands playing Glastonbury certainly doesn't.

Erm, didn't you wish that my boat would sink yesterday, presumably with me on it?

EDIT: Added a smiley face so you know i'm not starting anything!

The gloves come off once people start throw their faeces around. BTW, presumption appears to be a bad habit of yours. It’s assumption’s not so smart cousin and you know what they say about assumption.

Really?  You seem to think its a storm in a teacup because the bands were little-known and because the JCF issued a sensible statement.  It took the right-wing press to even raise the issue.  

Again, put the shoe on the other foot and imagine a couple of bands that encouraged the killing of Labour voters making it on to the Glastonbury line-up, existing, or being considered acceptable because they were "little known".  Highly unlikely. 

Hence the point about polarisation not really being polarisation as it skews towards certain types of speech being allowed against certain people.  This should absolutely be no surprise.  We have already established in law the idea that certain people can have more rights than others (in the interests of "equity" over "equality").  This is where it leads.

The faeces I was throwing was aimed squarely at Johnson. If fanboys choose to jump in front of it that's up to them!

No, the faeces you were throwing was at anyone who would vote for Johnson and... as it turned out, someone who didn’t even vote for him. I’m not a “fanboy” of Johnson’s either, but he’s a way better option than the economic and cultural destruction of our country.

Yes really. The JCF condemnation demonstrates that what you posted on Monday (below, again), is completely untrue.

I know you are fairly literate, you are wilfully misrepresenting a situation.

That's the biggest problem atm, people from across the political spectrum, but mostly right wing populists, posting crap on the internet. There's so much of it, people don't know what's what.

There is a problem with language on the left, but most on the left recognise that and condemn it. The firsts link I had to some daft threatening banner before the Tory conference, was from a left wing friend condemning it. Sorry that doesn't fit with the narrative your bubble has constructed, but it's true.

What I actually said was "If there are, you really need to have a word with yourselves" with reference to if anybody on here was going to vote Tory.

If that's what you call throwing faeces then f*ck me you need to grow a thicker skin!

What about the climate change falsehoods? 

Does no response mean you have none?

Likewise with “I hope your boat sinks”.

Glasshouses shouldn’t stones people in throw - in any order you like  

BTW “He’ll get it done”