Good to see The Guardian editorial department encouraging the use of sensationalist language. Instead of climate change, “climate emergency, climate crisis and climate breakdown” should be used to describe the situation. “Global heating” is also the new norm as it sounds racier than warming. Why not use “global boiling”?
It is funny how language gets used to distort situations to fit a predetermined narrative. It is not so different to governments using consultancy firms to reverse engineer an answer they need in order to validate new spending or taxes. It’s a crock. That’s why so many public projects end up massively over budget and woefully underutilized.
It seems The Guardian has sought this divine inspiration from none other than the 16yo pig-tailed goddess of climate panic, Greta Thunberg. She has been using these words to crank up the guilt of we evil adults who are bankrupting her future. If we follow her wishes she’ll be assured of making her mates suffer indefinitely.
It doesn’t much matter. The Guardian is only making its ultimate audience even narrower than it was before. It is a sure fire way to see it having to continue to beg for charity. Appealing to those that expect everyone else to save the planet on their behalf will not attract advertisers or paying customers at anywhere the rate to sustain the alarmist stories.
Perhaps it should look at what is happening to CNN. The anti-Trump climate alarmist network has started lay-offs to stem the disastrous ratings plunge. How hilarious it was to learn CNN is shifting its NY offices by the shoreline of the Hudson River.
The Guardian should seek balance in its journalism as opposed to the echo chamber it has forced itself to live inside. Perhaps it best put flame retardant materials inside so the global heating it reports doesn’t lead to its extinction. The hot air it produces is the likely cause.