Go to first unread
Back
to top
Everything wrong with The Guardian summed up in one article
Watch
Announcements
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ment-133364297
Climate change is natural....so how can it be "immoral?" It's a scientific process.
Also to compare it to the abolitionist movement is just ridiculous. Nothing similar between the two
Btw...I'm a leftist. I like some of The Guardian's articles, but this one really takes the biscuit for being absolutely ridiculous. What ever happened to it being an "intelligent" and intellectual broadsheet
Climate change is natural....so how can it be "immoral?" It's a scientific process.
Also to compare it to the abolitionist movement is just ridiculous. Nothing similar between the two
Btw...I'm a leftist. I like some of The Guardian's articles, but this one really takes the biscuit for being absolutely ridiculous. What ever happened to it being an "intelligent" and intellectual broadsheet
Last edited by Ferrograd; 1 year ago
0
reply
Report
#2
(Original post by Ferrograd)
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ment-133364297
Climate change is natural....so how can it be "immoral?" It's a scientific process.
Also to compare it to the abolitionist movement is just ridiculous. Nothing similar between the two
Btw...I'm a leftist. I like some of The Guardian's articles, but this one really takes the biscuit for being absolutely ridiculous. What ever happened to it being an "intelligent" and intellectual broadsheet
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ment-133364297
Climate change is natural....so how can it be "immoral?" It's a scientific process.
Also to compare it to the abolitionist movement is just ridiculous. Nothing similar between the two
Btw...I'm a leftist. I like some of The Guardian's articles, but this one really takes the biscuit for being absolutely ridiculous. What ever happened to it being an "intelligent" and intellectual broadsheet
The morals would apply to it being a choice and the impact on others?
Why cant you compare one protest movement to another?
0
reply
(Original post by 999tigger)
Depends what you mean by natural? Is man made natural?
The morals would apply to it being a choice and the impact on others?
Why cant you compare one protest movement to another?
Depends what you mean by natural? Is man made natural?
The morals would apply to it being a choice and the impact on others?
Why cant you compare one protest movement to another?
Literally, scientists acknowledge climate change is man made. The climate used to be far different - much hotter and drier - than it is now because of volcanoes etc. There were no humans on the earth then.
The fight to end slavery is vastly different than the fight to protect the environment. Slaves were an oppresed minority who needed to be freed, where climate change is still a highly important issue, if not the most important one we face now, but there's a difference between a liberation movement and a movement to protect the environment
2
reply
Report
#4
(Original post by Ferrograd)
Climate change is natural. It's just being accelerated by man made acts.
Literally, scientists acknowledge climate change is man made. The climate used to be far different - much hotter and drier - than it is now because of volcanoes etc. There were no humans on the earth then.
The fight to end slavery is vastly different than the fight to protect the environment. Slaves were an oppresed minority who needed to be freed, where climate change is still a highly important issue, if not the most important one we face now, but there's a difference between a liberation movement and a movement to protect the environment
Climate change is natural. It's just being accelerated by man made acts.
Literally, scientists acknowledge climate change is man made. The climate used to be far different - much hotter and drier - than it is now because of volcanoes etc. There were no humans on the earth then.
The fight to end slavery is vastly different than the fight to protect the environment. Slaves were an oppresed minority who needed to be freed, where climate change is still a highly important issue, if not the most important one we face now, but there's a difference between a liberation movement and a movement to protect the environment
It is still a protest movement and has things in common.
Liking your rage even if it is misguided.
0
reply
(Original post by 999tigger)
Perhaps its the man made influence they are protesting about?
It is still a protest movement and has things in common.
Liking your rage even if it is misguided.
Perhaps its the man made influence they are protesting about?
It is still a protest movement and has things in common.
Liking your rage even if it is misguided.
It has little in common with a liberation movement to liberate an oppressed people who are being held in captiivty, tortured and treated like sub humans.
0
reply
Report
#6
their headline is widely sensational and misleading...
But you could say that about most news stories. I frequently get pissed off at the BBC for it.
The article itself isn't anything radical, just standard progressive environmentalist views - my reaction is the same as always.. I sympathies and also think the problem needs to be solved, I just don't think your best bet of solving it is by regression.
But you could say that about most news stories. I frequently get pissed off at the BBC for it.
The article itself isn't anything radical, just standard progressive environmentalist views - my reaction is the same as always.. I sympathies and also think the problem needs to be solved, I just don't think your best bet of solving it is by regression.
0
reply
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
their headline is widely sensational and misleading...
But you could say that about most news stories. I frequently get pissed off at the BBC for it.
The article itself isn't anything radical, just standard progressive environmentalist views - my reaction is the same as always.. I sympathies and also think the problem needs to be solved, I just don't think your best bet of solving it is by regression.
their headline is widely sensational and misleading...
But you could say that about most news stories. I frequently get pissed off at the BBC for it.
The article itself isn't anything radical, just standard progressive environmentalist views - my reaction is the same as always.. I sympathies and also think the problem needs to be solved, I just don't think your best bet of solving it is by regression.
0
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by Ferrograd)
Climate change is natural. It's just being accelerated by man made acts.
Climate change is natural. It's just being accelerated by man made acts.
0
reply
Report
#9
(Original post by Ferrograd)
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ment-133364297
Climate change is natural....so how can it be "immoral?" It's a scientific process.
Also to compare it to the abolitionist movement is just ridiculous. Nothing similar between the two
Btw...I'm a leftist. I like some of The Guardian's articles, but this one really takes the biscuit for being absolutely ridiculous. What ever happened to it being an "intelligent" and intellectual broadsheet
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ment-133364297
Climate change is natural....so how can it be "immoral?" It's a scientific process.
Also to compare it to the abolitionist movement is just ridiculous. Nothing similar between the two
Btw...I'm a leftist. I like some of The Guardian's articles, but this one really takes the biscuit for being absolutely ridiculous. What ever happened to it being an "intelligent" and intellectual broadsheet
Secondly, climate change is not a scientific process. I'll leave it up to your GCSE teachers to explain what scientific means.
You should examine your own intellectual shortcomings before you try to critique other's.
4
reply
(Original post by _Wellies_)
Firstly, only an exceptionally dim person would fail to grasp that the article is clearly talking about anthropogenic climate change.
Secondly, climate change is not a scientific process. I'll leave it up to your GCSE teachers to explain what scientific means.
You should examine your own intellectual shortcomings before you try to critique other's.
Firstly, only an exceptionally dim person would fail to grasp that the article is clearly talking about anthropogenic climate change.
Secondly, climate change is not a scientific process. I'll leave it up to your GCSE teachers to explain what scientific means.
You should examine your own intellectual shortcomings before you try to critique other's.
Yes I can figure out they are talking about man made activities, but they are still implying that climate change is somehow something we've created, when that simply isn't the case.
0
reply
Report
#11
(Original post by Ferrograd)
They should make that clear then - they're barking up the wrong tree.
It has little in common with a liberation movement to liberate an oppressed people who are being held in captiivty, tortured and treated like sub humans.
They should make that clear then - they're barking up the wrong tree.
It has little in common with a liberation movement to liberate an oppressed people who are being held in captiivty, tortured and treated like sub humans.
Not my fault you are unable to see common factors from one protest movement to another.
1
reply
Report
#12
(Original post by Ferrograd)
but they are still implying that climate change is somehow something we've created, when that simply isn't the case.
but they are still implying that climate change is somehow something we've created, when that simply isn't the case.
1
reply
The climate change is natural, its the rate of which it is happening which is man made and isnt normal
0
reply
Report
#14
(Original post by Ferrograd)
The climate change is natural, its the rate of which it is happening which is man made and isnt normal
The climate change is natural, its the rate of which it is happening which is man made and isnt normal
0
reply
Report
#15
(Original post by Ferrograd)
The climate change is natural, its the rate of which it is happening which is man made and isnt normal
The climate change is natural, its the rate of which it is happening which is man made and isnt normal
Secondly, the first words of the article are literally 'human-induced climate change'.
In terms of the article itself - they directly state they are not comparing climate change and slavery, merely saying that when the West pumps out carbon dioxide and its those in Africa (drought), Bangladesh (flood), Caribbean (hurricanes) that actually suffer, maybe that's an immoral action on the part of the West? I really don't see a problem with that...
0
reply
Report
#16
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
I sympathies and also think the problem needs to be solved, I just don't think your best bet of solving it is by regression.
I sympathies and also think the problem needs to be solved, I just don't think your best bet of solving it is by regression.
There's nothing that can't be solved with the power of science. If our technology is destroying the environment, we can either not use it (like many people are advocating) or replace it with more efficient, environmentally friendly versions that do not incur any technological regression.
I'm all for nuclear power as the sole base load (come on fusion! Fission is fine for now though), and solar panels being mandatory on new builds.
And with that we have a sustainable source of transport, by replacing petrol cars with electric (which is happening already, just not as fast as we'd like). Electric cars are smoother anyway, there's no regression there.
As for material waste, I think small sacrifices such as paper straws over plastic are reasonable to ask of everyone. Other than that though, better recycling is the way forward. Plastic is integral to society now and we needn't stop using it- just stop dumping it.
And then there's the whole argument against meat. I wont support that argument as I think it's just vegans trying to push their moral agenda by means of hijacking the climate movement. Besides, going by their own quoted figures, far more carbon is naturally removed from the atmosphere than animals actually produce. So if you fixed every other problem as above, then this one needn't be addressed.
0
reply
Report
#17
(Original post by Ferrograd)
It has little in common with a liberation movement to liberate an oppressed people who are being held in captiivty, tortured and treated like sub humans.
It has little in common with a liberation movement to liberate an oppressed people who are being held in captiivty, tortured and treated like sub humans.
0
reply
Report
#18
(Original post by Ferrograd)
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ment-133364297
Climate change is natural....so how can it be "immoral?" It's a scientific process.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ment-133364297
Climate change is natural....so how can it be "immoral?" It's a scientific process.
0
reply
Report
#19
(Original post by MagnumKoishi)
This ^
There's nothing that can't be solved with the power of science. If our technology is destroying the environment, we can either not use it (like many people are advocating) or replace it with more efficient, environmentally friendly versions that do not incur any technological regression.
I'm all for nuclear power as the sole base load (come on fusion! Fission is fine for now though), and solar panels being mandatory on new builds.
And with that we have a sustainable source of transport, by replacing petrol cars with electric (which is happening already, just not as fast as we'd like). Electric cars are smoother anyway, there's no regression there.
As for material waste, I think small sacrifices such as paper straws over plastic are reasonable to ask of everyone. Other than that though, better recycling is the way forward. Plastic is integral to society now and we needn't stop using it- just stop dumping it.
This ^
There's nothing that can't be solved with the power of science. If our technology is destroying the environment, we can either not use it (like many people are advocating) or replace it with more efficient, environmentally friendly versions that do not incur any technological regression.
I'm all for nuclear power as the sole base load (come on fusion! Fission is fine for now though), and solar panels being mandatory on new builds.
And with that we have a sustainable source of transport, by replacing petrol cars with electric (which is happening already, just not as fast as we'd like). Electric cars are smoother anyway, there's no regression there.
As for material waste, I think small sacrifices such as paper straws over plastic are reasonable to ask of everyone. Other than that though, better recycling is the way forward. Plastic is integral to society now and we needn't stop using it- just stop dumping it.
For example, you say you want mandatory solar panels. In fact the government recently removed solar panel subsidies as it felt they were too expensive. Putting panels on every house would cost a vast amount and would mean people had less money to spend on, say, electric cars. If we fund it through tax we'd have less money to spend on, say, new medical treatments on the NHS. Is that not also regression?
And then there's the whole argument against meat. I wont support that argument as I think it's just vegans trying to push their moral agenda by means of hijacking the climate movement. Besides, going by their own quoted figures, far more carbon is naturally removed from the atmosphere than animals actually produce. So if you fixed every other problem as above, then this one needn't be addressed.
I mean, come on. Look at that last line. You really think we're going to fix every other problem before its too late? Doesn't it make far more logical sense to reduce meat consumption now, then re-relax on the issue when we have fixed enough other problems?
Personally I'm not a vegetarian at all but I do restrict meat based on carbon emissions. I think its one of the absolute easiest ways we as individuals can reduce our carbon footprint at the moment.
0
reply
(Original post by nexttime)
What do you consider "regression"?
For example, you say you want mandatory solar panels. In fact the government recently removed solar panel subsidies as it felt they were too expensive. Putting panels on every house would cost a vast amount and would mean people had less money to spend on, say, electric cars. If we fund it through tax we'd have less money to spend on, say, new medical treatments on the NHS. Is that not also regression?
I mean, come on. Look at that last line. You really think we're going to fix every other problem before its too late? Doesn't it make far more logical sense to reduce meat consumption now, then re-relax on the issue when we have fixed enough other problems?
Personally I'm not a vegetarian at all but I do restrict meat based on carbon emissions. I think its one of the absolute easiest ways we as individuals can reduce our carbon footprint at the moment.
What do you consider "regression"?
For example, you say you want mandatory solar panels. In fact the government recently removed solar panel subsidies as it felt they were too expensive. Putting panels on every house would cost a vast amount and would mean people had less money to spend on, say, electric cars. If we fund it through tax we'd have less money to spend on, say, new medical treatments on the NHS. Is that not also regression?
I mean, come on. Look at that last line. You really think we're going to fix every other problem before its too late? Doesn't it make far more logical sense to reduce meat consumption now, then re-relax on the issue when we have fixed enough other problems?
Personally I'm not a vegetarian at all but I do restrict meat based on carbon emissions. I think its one of the absolute easiest ways we as individuals can reduce our carbon footprint at the moment.
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
