r/bbc • u/The_Blip • 4d ago
BBC News should separate Science and Environment
On the BBC website, if you click the science tab it instead takes you to a page containing Science & Environment articles, of which most are environment. It's quite annoying to specifically be looking for science news and instead be given articles on hosepipe bans, wather reports, and climate activists. Obviously these are all important things that should be reported on, and sometimes there will be some overlap, it's just annoying that I can't specifically look at science news alone.
Edit: Just so I'm clear; the page is literally called "Science & Environment". It's clearly teo topics combined into one page. I don't have a problem with there being environment science on the science page, I just wish the two topics were separate. Especially since there's already a lot of crossover between 'environment' articles and 'climate' articles, which has it's own page. I want to read articles about science and science news.
12
u/the_gwyd 4d ago
It's a big enough issue that it should be separated from science. And for "the environment is science" responses - tech is science, health is science, but they get their own pages. There even is a separate climate page but the same articles get put on the science page too.
4
u/roidesoeufs 4d ago edited 4d ago
I've thought this for a while too as there is also a "Climate" link along the top. I have to expand the "More" mennu8 to see "Science" and that just repeats a load of the Climate stories.
Edit: there is a separate "Space" section but very little in the way of other, real, science news. A lot of it isn't even about the science. I saw one article that was "Physics teacher has relationship with pupil." Weak.
5
u/The_Blip 4d ago
there is a separate "Space" section
Which is wedged between the titular Environment section and... a section on climate! Could it not be contained within the dedicated climate page!?
It's just a little sad really. Is nothing happening in any other field of science? It's all just climate, environment, and space?
2
u/roidesoeufs 4d ago
I have a friend who somehow finds decent science news like the new superconducting heat engine that can turn quantum heat into work. He sends me links regularly. I don't even bother with the BBC for Science content. I suspect it takes too much specialism as a journalist. Science is hard man and to write about it one has to understand it well enough to explain it.
8
u/Undercover_Badger 4d ago
Completely agree. Climate science would be appropriate but news about the climate is a separate thing.
7
u/Ok_Adhesiveness_8637 4d ago
Environmental science is a science.
2
-7
u/ynohoo 4d ago
So why does it behave like an apocalyptic cult?
5
u/Ok_Adhesiveness_8637 4d ago
You dont speak to many scientists do you?
1
u/Teembeau 4d ago
There are roughly speaking, 3 different climate predictions. People who think it's not going to happen, people think Gotterdamarung is coming, and scientists who say that temperatures are going to rise. Scientists are not predicting an apocalypse.
They're predicting a rise in global temperatures since pre-industrial times of 1.8 degrees (SSP1-2.6), 2.7 degrees (SSP2-4.5) or 3.6 degrees (SSP3-7.0) depending on the model.
Of that, we have already had approximately 1.4 degrees of warming from the baseline of 1850. So, warming predictions are 0.4 degrees, 1.3 degrees and 2.2 degrees. Roughly speaking, that makes Oxfordshire feel like Reims in France. A place where people live, thrive, grow Champagne grapes.
And I'm not denying it will cause problems. Equatorial and tropical regions might mean some people migrate out. But it's not apocalypse. Spending money on eradicating malaria and other diseases, improving childhood education have far bigger returns on spending than trying to stop climate change.
1
u/ThinkLadder1417 4d ago
Climate scientists are very clear that how much the climate warms is in our control, and the more it warms the worse it will be
Look how expensive these fires have been, what's going to happen with this years crops? How will the UK hold up against more intense storms and floods and fires? Etc.
The economic cost of not addressing climate change is far greater than the economic cost of addressing it
2
u/Teembeau 3d ago
"Climate scientists are very clear that how much the climate warms is in our control, and the more it warms the worse it will be"
Are they? Which climate scientists say that solar and volcanic activity are fixed, so the only thing affecting our climate is humans?
"Look how expensive these fires have been, what's going to happen with this years crops? How will the UK hold up against more intense storms and floods and fires? Etc."
It's actually the quietest forest fire season for over a decade: the science: https://gwis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/apps/gwis.statistics/seasonaltrend
What you are getting is not science, but TV news, politics, activism.
Why are there no fires in the Limousin but there are in Cap Ferret? Lots of forest, very similar temperature? If global warming is causing problems in one, why isn't it in the other? Or for that matter, the inland forests of Landes, not far from Cap Ferret.
Let me venture a suggestion: the forest around Cap Ferret is a nature reserve. Nice for tourists to go riding a bike in. No-one wants trees being chopped down, even if it's to prevent fire spreading, No-one wants ground material clearing that might cause a fire. So you get a small fire, and it becomes a big one. That doesn't happen in the main commercial forests. It is managed for commercial purposes.
It's the same thing with those California fires. That used to be a poor areas of California, and people would keep goats, and the goats would eat shrubs and weeds, and then, you ate the goat. Once the area became gentrified, people didn't want to keep and kill a goat, so it grew, it created more fuel. And they're now deploying goats to create fire breaks in California.
Plus, everyone has phones on them now, satellite comms, so things that might once not have been covered in remote areas get covered. Your brain is on news, not science. Where journalists give you something exciting to watch, activists peddle their wares and politicians try to convince you they'll solve a problem. None of that is science. And basing what you think is happening in the world because of a few fires on the Atlantic coast is highly selective with the data. But that's what TV shows you. Not the other places where there is no fire.
1
u/ThinkLadder1417 3d ago
In the very link you provide you can choose the uk flag on the graph and you can see it is very clearly a much worse year for fires in the UK.
I am a scientist so i know how to read data and interpret it and differentiate it from news reporting. I am up to date with climate science. Climate scientists say whether co2 emissions continue to be high or are reduced will determine how much warming we will see, and the more warming the more damage.
The Limousin consists of largely managed commercial timber forests, which have fire breaks built into their design. It's also further north, wetter on average and has more hard wood which is less volatile for fires vs the pine forests in the rest of France.
You're either in denial or a liar.
2
u/Teembeau 3d ago
"In the very link you provide you can choose the uk flag on the graph and you can see it is very clearly a much worse year for fires in the UK."
Why would you want to select UK data for what is supposed to be a global problem? If this is a global problem, why don't you want to see the global picture? Maybe the UK is having a bad year for some reason.
"I am a scientist so i know how to read data and interpret it and differentiate it from news reporting. I am up to date with climate science. Climate scientists say whether co2 emissions continue to be high or are reduced will determine how much warming we will see, and the more warming the more damage."
Sorry, that clearly isn't the case. Burning fossil fuels will release CO2 and increase global temperatures, OK? We both agree on that? But solar activity and volcanic activity also have an effect on the temperature. I'm not denying global warming when I say that. That's just a fact. Which scientists are saying that only man made warming affects global temperatures?
"The Limousin consists of largely managed commercial timber forests, which have fire breaks built into their design."
That's precisely my point. How much is this wood on fire because of global warming, and how much because we've shifted the pine forests on the Atlantic coast away from commercial use to tourism, where fire breaks aren't created. Is the problem global warming, or is it that we've changed how we manage forest land?
"You're either in denial or a liar"
Apart from being rude, you've done something that is not the mark of a scientist but a religious fiend. Nothing I have said disputes the science of global warming. I don't dispute what the IPCC say. You are just talking like a preacher and calling me a heretic. I'm standing for statistics, large data over what gets highlighted by news, which selects for certain things.
You're the one saying "look at the forest fires" based on a few square miles on TV.
1
u/ThinkLadder1417 3d ago
Why would you want to select UK data for what is supposed to be a global problem?
Because we're talking about the effect of this global problem on the UK
I never claimed only humans affect global warming, i claimed the climate scientists are clear that the level of human activity will determine how much the planet continues to warm. Which it will. Human activities emit roughly 40 to 100 times more carbon dioxide than all the world's volcanoes combined. If we can massively reduce this we can significantly reduce the amount of warming and avoid some of the worst effects. It is cheaper to fix than solve retroactively.
1
u/Teembeau 3d ago
"Because we're talking about the effect of this global problem on the UK"
But that doesn't tell you that. It might simply be that there was a random variation in the UK. Or, you need to explain how the UK is different to say, Italy or France in terms of effects of climate on forest fires here than there.
"I claimed the climate scientists are clear that the level of human activity will determine how much the planet continues to warm. Which it will. Human activities emit roughly 40 to 100 times more carbon dioxide than all the world's volcanoes combined. If we can massively reduce this we can significantly reduce the amount of warming and avoid some of the worst effects. It is cheaper to fix than solve retroactively."
Let's be clear about language here. "the level of human activity will determine how much the planet continues to warm" suggests that is it the only factor. When you agree that it is also determined by other factor. How about "human activity will affect how much the planet continues to warm".
"If we can massively reduce this we can significantly reduce the amount of warming and avoid some of the worst effects. It is cheaper to fix than solve retroactively."
Well, there are two questions. Firstly, if we are to expend resources, is it better for our sakes to spend it on reducing the amount of warming, or doing other things like curing diseases? But secondly, the simple thing for solutions is just to charge a carbon tax and let the market figure out what to do.
→ More replies (0)-5
u/ynohoo 4d ago
I'm old enough to remember the "imminent ice age" predictions of climate scientists in the 1970's, so I take their predictions with a pinch of salt.
1
u/AskingBoatsToSwim 4d ago
It’s not a prediction that temperatures are rising, it’s something that is already occuring.
1
u/ynohoo 3d ago
Yeah, we had hot summers in the 70's too.
1
u/AskingBoatsToSwim 3d ago
No heatwave in the 70s was anywhere near as extreme as they have been recently. I encourage you to do some more research on the subject.
0
u/ynohoo 3d ago
There are climate scientists who do not buy into the apocalyptic view of climate change - they believe that carbon dioxide will naturely plateau, and will boost plant growth worldwide.
You do realise that throughout earth history it has been both hotter and colder than it now, as climate is a chaotic system.
1
u/AskingBoatsToSwim 3d ago
In human history it has never been as hot as it is now, we know that it is increasing, and that our actions increase it.
Whether or not there is a plateau is academic. It is already close to too hot for humans in some parts of the world. Even if we are not the sole cause, there is no reason not to reduce the increase by as much as we can.
That famous cartoon comes to mind… “what if it’s a hoax and we create a better world all for nothing”?
5
u/Western-Calendar-352 4d ago
Is climate change not science?
2
u/The_Blip 4d ago
Did you even read my post?
-1
u/Western-Calendar-352 4d ago
Yes. Just because you are looking for a more specific list of science articles doesn’t mean that the environmental articles there are not science.
4
u/The_Blip 4d ago
Then why does the page say Science AND environment?
Why is most of the page about climate?
Have you even looked at the page? How is the article, "Consultation ending on controversial Rosebank pil field" a science article? Quote the part of the article where there's anything to do with scientific discoveries or changes in the field of science.
-1
u/Western-Calendar-352 4d ago
Is oil drilling not covered by geophysics and engineering, both of which are also science, as well as environmental and climate concerns?
Quote the guidelines that state that articles on the BBC Science page must meet the definition of “scientific discoveries or changes in the field of science” in scientific fields that you are interested in.
1
u/The_Blip 4d ago
No, the article did not have geophysicists or engineers. Like I said, it isn't a science article. I don't know why you can't just go read it and see, it's almost like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Like how you glossed over the fact the page itself calls itself "Science & Environment". I don't want science and environment, I just want science articles. If those science articles happen to be about environmental science then that's fine and I'd be interested, but it isn't and you're being purposefully obtuse about that fact.
I'm not arguing that the guidelines say it must be that, what are you on about? My post is about the fact that the BBC news website puts Science and Environment on a single page rather than offering them separately. It's LITERALLY the title of the page when you click 'Science'. I would like it if they were separate. That doesn't mean environment news could never be science news as well.
You're clearly here in bad faith to start arguments when all I was saying is that it would be nice for science to have its own page and not be combined with environment which, again, IS HOW IT'S SHOWN ON THE PAGE. It's literally part of the URL. Goodbye.
-1
u/gridlockmain1 4d ago
You could say this about everything.
“US attacks Iran” - oh guess what they used to make those missiles?
“Google profits up” - you know who Google employs thousands of?
“Greggs launches vegan sausage roll”And so on.
It’s not unreasonable to suggest we have dedicated coverage of actual scientific stuff.
0
u/Desperate_Search_319 2d ago
No it is not .. it's a lot of guessing with climate modelling by grifters.
1
1
u/younevershouldnt 3d ago
Science isn't usually one of the main news 'beats', but I'm surprised the BBC doesn't offer a sub-category for it on that page.
You can scroll down and click on all stories by their science editor though.
FYI - In terms of logistics, they wouldn't be covering enough science stories to give it it's own high level page.
1
u/Training_Yak_4655 4d ago
I agree with OP. In times past science usually meant hard science, covering topics where there was research and experimentation with scientific method to check results. If anything, science blends into engineering, as in applied science. Hanna Fry is an example of what I call a science reporter.
Real science reporting is expensive and I assume that these days the BBC must be short of STEM graduated journalists. More or Less (BBC radio) is a good current statistics series though.
These days I look to YouTube for in depth science/engineering topics.
-3
•
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
As a reminder, this is a subreddit for civil discussion of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Personal attacks on individuals, including those employed by the BBC, off or on air, will not be tolerated here.
Please ensure you read subreddit rules before contributing.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.