Everything wrong with The Guardian summed up in one article

Watch
Ferrograd
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
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
Last edited by Ferrograd; 1 year ago
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#2
Report 1 year ago
#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
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?
0
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#3
(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?
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
2
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#4
Report 1 year ago
#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
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.
0
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#5
(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.
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.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#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.
0
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#7
(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.
It's just massively sensational, and is different from sensationalisation in say the BBC - its taking something massively out of context. As what is supposedly an intellectual paper, I would expect less sensationalism and more facts
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by Ferrograd)
Climate change is natural. It's just being accelerated by man made acts.
"Just"
0
reply
username4926212
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#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
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.
4
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#10
(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.
Maybe you can now understand my frustration when people use the wrong words for things.....

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
999tigger
Badges: 19
#11
Report 1 year ago
#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.
Perhaps people with any intelligence are capable of reading and understanding what is written?
Not my fault you are unable to see common factors from one protest movement to another.
1
reply
username4929556
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#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.
Man induced climate change isn't something we've created? Interesting point of view you have there. Where did you get your ideas from?
1
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#13
The climate change is natural, its the rate of which it is happening which is man made and isnt normal
0
reply
username4929556
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#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
Why do you keep saying that? The first part of what you're saying there isn't relevant to the article. The second part is.
0
reply
nexttime
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#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
Firstly, I think it is clearly in common useage now - 'climate change' refers to the current, massively massively increased vs normal process caused by humans. To insist that every single time we say climate change we must say 'human-caused' beforehand is petty and impractical. In a scientific publication, maybe. In a newspaper headline, no.

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
MagnumKoishi
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#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.
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.



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
username1799249
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#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.
I think it is closer than you think. Climate change will cause migration and with it conflict. Those forced to flee will live very limited lives at the hands of their gruging hosts.
0
reply
Plagioclase
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#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.
It is obvious that they are referring to anthropogenic climate change, you are just trying to be difficult.
0
reply
nexttime
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#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.
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?


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
Ferrograd
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#20
(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.
It is, but what do you think about developing countries? They will be eating more meat like red meat when their economies develop properly.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (126)
4.92%
Uncertainty around my education (378)
14.77%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (283)
11.06%
Lack of purpose or motivation (360)
14.07%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (119)
4.65%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (155)
6.06%
Loneliness (218)
8.52%
Financial worries (94)
3.67%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (106)
4.14%
Exposure to negative news/social media (120)
4.69%
Lack of real life entertainment (135)
5.28%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (224)
8.75%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (241)
9.42%

Watched Threads

View All