> 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

> 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.