2 ms·

> It probably has a lot less to do with air temperature and more to do with amount of precipitation and humidity. You also don't have bamboo growing in Europe o

by derriz 1y ago

> It probably has a lot less to do with air temperature and more to do with amount of precipitation and humidity. You also don't have bamboo growing in Europe or the Mediterranean. No idea what the point here is? Was it to demonstrate that the BBC‘s grasp of botany is poor? Bamboo grows just fine in Europe. In the UK, some even argue it should be considered an invasive species.

contrarian1234 1y ago
> Was it to demonstrate that the BBC‘s grasp of botany is poor? Sure, that's one way to put it. If you don't know the topic you're reporting on, then maybe don't report on it? I'm not a botanist, and I can smell the BS already. To their credit, they do link a paper which I assume explains things better (though a cursory look seems to show it's not really about rice) And furthermore.. if you're reporting on some science, and you're not an expert.. it helps to ask people not associate with the research for an outside assessment. Science reporting at the BBC is a disaster. Nothing is fact checked. They just ask the researchers and eat up whatever is said and add a layer of sensationalism on top. It's the same across all their writing and podcast/radio programs.
- dotancohen 1y ago
  At the BBC, eating up whatever is said and adding a layer of sensationalism on top is not limited to only science reporting.
  - contrarian1234 1y ago
    They seem a bit more careful when it comes to political stats or economic figures. I enjoy their Behind the Stats podcast: https://www.bbc.com/audio/series/p02nrss1 https://www.bbc.com/audio/series/p02nrss1 (though also often sloppy) I think b/c politicians are expected to lie. Whereas scientists are viewed as naiive cute furry animals that wouldn't spin the truth. You never hear them take a scientist to task or ask probing questions. It's really a different type of interview - where the holy gurus of academia are blessing the reporter with knowledge
- derriz 1y ago
  > Sure, that's one way to put it. If you don't know the topic you're reporting on,... Am I missing some irony or subtle sarcasm here? You're attacking the BBC for being inaccurate - with an argument containing a claim which is not just inaccurate but completely false - about the habitats which support growing bamboo. > and I can smell the BS already Where is this BS? You haven't identified a single sentence containing a scientific inaccuracy as far as I can see. "Smell" is a weasel word - a way of avoiding the effort of actually presenting an argument or evidence - or even using the opportunity for some introspection about your own emotional reaction to an article because it mentions climate change. I've read the article - it uses the usual light entertainment style favored by the BBC - which is the reason I don't bother with the BBC at all. But unless you're actually offended by being reminded of the existence of AGW, I can't see anything at all offensive, inaccurate or false in it.

by derriz 1y ago

contrarian1234 1y ago

> Was it to demonstrate that the BBC‘s grasp of botany is poor? Sure, that's one way to put it. If you don't know the topic you're reporting on, then maybe don't report on it? I'm not a botanist, and I can smell the BS already. To their credit, they do link a paper which I assume explains things better (though a cursory look seems to show it's not really about rice) And furthermore.. if you're reporting on some science, and you're not an expert.. it helps to ask people not associate with the research for an outside assessment. Science reporting at the BBC is a disaster. Nothing is fact checked. They just ask the researchers and eat up whatever is said and add a layer of sensationalism on top. It's the same across all their writing and podcast/radio programs.

dotancohen 1y ago
At the BBC, eating up whatever is said and adding a layer of sensationalism on top is not limited to only science reporting.
- contrarian1234 1y ago
  They seem a bit more careful when it comes to political stats or economic figures. I enjoy their Behind the Stats podcast: https://www.bbc.com/audio/series/p02nrss1 https://www.bbc.com/audio/series/p02nrss1 (though also often sloppy) I think b/c politicians are expected to lie. Whereas scientists are viewed as naiive cute furry animals that wouldn't spin the truth. You never hear them take a scientist to task or ask probing questions. It's really a different type of interview - where the holy gurus of academia are blessing the reporter with knowledge
derriz 1y ago
> Sure, that's one way to put it. If you don't know the topic you're reporting on,... Am I missing some irony or subtle sarcasm here? You're attacking the BBC for being inaccurate - with an argument containing a claim which is not just inaccurate but completely false - about the habitats which support growing bamboo. > and I can smell the BS already Where is this BS? You haven't identified a single sentence containing a scientific inaccuracy as far as I can see. "Smell" is a weasel word - a way of avoiding the effort of actually presenting an argument or evidence - or even using the opportunity for some introspection about your own emotional reaction to an article because it mentions climate change. I've read the article - it uses the usual light entertainment style favored by the BBC - which is the reason I don't bother with the BBC at all. But unless you're actually offended by being reminded of the existence of AGW, I can't see anything at all offensive, inaccurate or false in it.