Humans are lazy and bad at preventing long-term problems. We need to be reminded frequently, otherwise we get complacent and take naps instead of saving our species.

This is why there is a global crisis of confidence in science. B/c science is constantly portrayed as a tool to push agendas and policies (that are maybe even necessary) and not an exploration of facts. It's done so blatantly and transparently that anyone with a skeptical mind is just turned off by the whole thing

This isn't an indictment of science or scientists, but of science reporting. If the story is climate-change related then it's reported. If it's not, then they find some climate change related angle. If they can't then the story is usually dropped.

Science journalism has a lot of issues but I think those problems are across journalism and not especially unique to science. Over referencing familiar narratives, click bait headlines, piss poor editing...you'll find this in all types of news out there.

Should science journalist hold themselves to a better, special standard? True. Especially with the age old war that's waged on it by those who hold power through selling incredibly unscientific world views. But I think the overt actions these forces are more to blame than poor science journalism. People don't like inconvenient facts, people will forever be victims to a voice making a problem go away by denying the problem even exists.

I do not think scientists are entirely blame free, and institutions certainly share part of the blame. University PR departments frequently spin stuff to get attention from journalists (most commonly everything is a huge breakthrough, preferably related to an issue already in the news).

My guess is that the underlying issue is funding.

I also think there are often communication failures from many scientists - for example failing to distinguish between personal opinion, consensus opinion, and well proven things.

On top of that, of course, individual scientists are still fallible and biased like any human being, especially about things they feel strongly about.

A good journalist would speak to multiple people in the field with different opinions, ask them questions like how well proven a theory actually is, etc. Pity they are not more common!

Yes propaganda only works when used frequently

I would rephrase that as anything repeated frequently enough is perceived as true, no matter it's merits.

Climate change affecting which crops can be grown is why a (small) British wine industry has appeared.

There is an impending water shortage in Britain — since the water companies were privatized, they stopped building additional reservoir capacity.

Maybe they should stop the massive increase in population if it cannot be sustained by the resources in the island.

"if" is doing the heavy lifting there.

The privatised water companies chose to stop building additional reservoir capacity. From what I've read, the UK pipes currently leak about the same percentage of the water going through them, as the percentage by which the population went up since privatisation.

It's money and incentives, not a property of the geography.

When they try to they get stopped by NIMBYs.

> 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.

> 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.

At the BBC, eating up whatever is said and adding a layer of sensationalism on top is not limited to only science reporting.

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

(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

> 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.

>> "Nobody has tried this before, but with climate change, we have crops that, 10 years ago, we wouldn't have thought would be viable."

That's pretty interesting and relevant. Doesn't seem like they're shoehorning it in at all.

It's totally possible climate change has caused it a lot more viable to growing rice in the UK. I don't want to say they're lieing. I'm not some agricultural specialist to argue with them. But the way it's reported is so lazy and has such big holes in basic logic that it makes anyone reading it just highly skeptical.