It's been noticed for a while now that men in general and young men in particular are more right wing and likely to vote Reform, what's been missed is that the total opposite has been going on with women. Women seem to be voting Green in quite high numbers, and seem to be more aware of the climate crisis and more socially aware.
Another interesting polarity in an already polarised world.
I find it interesting that this shift is being under reported
This is a very intriguing post and I have found it interesting to read the discussions on here. The first point I would make is that the OP suggetss that women are more "aware", which implies that men are less aware, almost as if they vote for right wing parties because they are ignorant. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but if that is the intention then I don't think that's accurate.
As far as the climate crisis goes, I am not convinced that giving up our personal freedoms and liberties in persuit of an unachievable goal for an unproven theory is a good idea.
Speaking personally, I have major qualms about Reform. Farage strikes me as a sort of right wing Jeremy Corbyn, a very good protest leader who would not have the competency to actually run a country. His recent comments about SEN are also quite concerning.
I think there is truth on both the left and right. The Left are right about some things and the Right about others, that's why I try to respect everyone's point of view, provided their arguements are rooted in facts and knowledge.
I don't believe that simply taxing the rich will sort out our problems. It is wealthy people who pay 45% tax which funds the NHS, Universal Credit, public services and education. If we drive rich people out of the country, who will pay the taxes that fund everything?
I don't see a home for myself in any of the major political parties at the moment, I would probably vote conservative if pushed but I have qualms.
This is an interesting question which I have spent a lot of time reading about.
limate change isn’t a theory
First of all, everything in Science is a theory. The whole point of science is to keep questioning what we think we know and what has gone before so that we can learn and develop our knowledge of the universe. At one time, scientific consensus was that the earth is flat, the sun orbits the earth and bleeding with leeches cures diseases so just because something is Scientific consensus doesn't mean it is necessarily true.
I agree with you that the earth is warming. That is indisputable fact. What is questionable is the causes of this. There are actually many scientists over time who have questioned the idea that climate change is caused by human activity. David Bellamy, in particular, did some stellar work on the subject. The earth has been cooling and warming throughout its entire existence. For instance, in the middle ages there was a period where the earth was so hot that there was a drought all over Europe, millions died. Indeed, it was so hot that there were wine growing vineyards in Dorset and Devon and the temperatures in February in Italy were as hot as they are in August now.
Only scientists who provide evidence to prove man made climate change receive funding so obviously most scientists will look to prove this. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.
I'm not saying it isn't true, merely that we should always think critically and that an enquiring mind should never accept things at face value
I'm glad we agree about farmland. I do think those housebuilding ideas would put up the cost of houses quite significantly too. One of the worst effects of the Net Zero movement is to make ordinary people far poorer through massively increased energy bills, inefficient heat pumps and other inititives.
I agree that house building in this country is inefficient. On the subject of energy, the reason we don;t have energy security is because we refuse to use our own natural reserves of oil and gas in the north sea because of Net Zero targets and instead choose to rely on Russia and other despotic or unstable regimes
I don't live in fear, I'm not in favour of massive solar farms carpeting farmland either or corporations buying farms to grow trees so as they can offset their carbon. I do think that changes to the planing system could be made; new houses being built on a north south axis, maybe with solar panels on the south facing side and a green roof on the north, homes could be much more energy efficient too. People say that things like this would put up the cost of housing, but really you'd be at most increasing a mortgage for lowering running costs. We do need things like reforestation but in the right places and in the right way, one of the things we need is food security as well as energy security. On the subject of housing, why do we build new homes in such an ineeficient manner? For every 5 houses we build in a traditional style so beloved by big housebuilders we throw one away in wasted materials, these houses are often poorly constructed too, why can't we build houses like the Germans do, much more efficient in time and construction.
Some scientist argued that Lockdown was the best way to minimise deaths from Covid 19, but others argued for a different approach.
We were told consistently by government, medical advisers and media to "trust the science" every time lockdown was questioned. We were told it was the scientific consensus of the time and now many of those scientists admit they were wrong.
There are countless examples of climate alarmist predictions that were proved wrong.
In 1970 it was predicted that 4 billion people would die as a result of environmental change by 1989.
Strangely, at the same time the majority of environmental scientists were predicting a new ice age by the year 2000. There was a great deal of alarmism about it. That was completely wrong.
In 1989 UN environmental officials predicted entire nations would be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels due to global warming by the year 2000.
There are loads of other examples.
Scientists aren't always right. I don't think we need to be as afraid of this as the media and governments seem to want us to be.
Btw, it wasn't just David Bellamy that questioned it. There are a lot of other scientists including the founder of Greenpeace. Just because some of their peers have disagreed with them doesn't mean they have been debunked.
Anyway, it's an interesting topic and I have enjoyed discussing it with you
I didn't say that if you believe climate science you are giving up freedoms and liberties. I said that governments are using fear of climate change as an excuse to take away freedoms and liberties, that is a very different thing. They are also using climate change as a justification for some frankly deranged policies such as carpeting over productive farmland with solar panels, trying to "dim the sun" and giving cows potentially cancer causing drugs to stop them farting.
I respect your opinion about climate change and, as I said in my original post, I'm not saying it definitely isn't true. I'm just thinking critically and keeping an open mind.
I care for my environment, I litter pick, look after animals etc. Conservation is very important to me.
However, I choose not to spend my life living in fear of a threat that is unproven and that, even if it were real, I cannot change. That makes me free. Living in fear is not freedom.
I don't know why so many people seem to want to choose to live in fear and become actively upset when they encounter anyone who doesn't. It saddens me. I wish for freedom and happiness for all of us
The horrors of the mines in the Congo are common knowledge, there for all to see. The whole envioroment of Congo DR has been destroyed by the toxins released by these mines, hardly envioronmentally friendly.
Interestingly enough it is also the stuff that smartphone batteries are primarily made of.
There is also data
Until it is erased.
Not everything in science is theory. There is also data - or facts - derived from observation and/or experimentation. Theories are rational constructs used to make sense of data. They have to be the best fit for the available data, otherwise they would not be viable. If new data arises that invalidates a theory, the theory is scrapped and a new theory is postulated. Science is not a belief system, it is empirical and pragmatic, not dogmatic.
Not everything in science is theory. There is also data - or facts - derived from observation and/or experimentation. Theories are rational constructs used to make sense of data. They have to be the best fit for the available data, otherwise they would not be viable. If new data arises that invalidates a theory, the theory is scrapped and a new theory is postulated. Science is not a belief system, it is empirical and pragmatic, not dogmatic.
There is also data
Until it is erased.
