According to the BBC, we now live in a world of misinformation and fake news, in which fake experts and denialists peddle anti-science conspiracies that endanger us all. This has led to the establishment of fact-checking, in which the so-called denialist claims are seemingly debunked by self-appointed arbiters of the truth. To illustrate how these fact-checks often work in practice, I offer you the following fictional account of how the BBC Verify team might deal with one particularly interesting online talking point that is currently gaining traction. In keeping with fact-checking tradition, we start with a clear declaration of the ‘misinformation’ to be debunked:

One of the most recent of false narratives to appear on the internet has been the assertion that 3.0 is greater than 0.85, a view favoured by climate change deniers, seemingly based solely upon a rudimentary understanding of mathematics gained at a very early stage in their education. But is it really true that a number such as 3.0 can be said to be greater than 0.85? In the simplistic world of the fake expert, the answer would be yes, but in the world of climate change risk management, in which the vast majority of the world’s scientists are in agreement, a much more nuanced and context-driven reality emerges.

The problem with the naïve pseudo-mathematics of the climate change denier is that it often fails to understand the true importance of the numbers concerned, but it is only when this importance is taken into account that reliable statements can be made regarding magnitude. The fake experts will point out that when the units are the same, the numbers are directly comparable. But that is where the misdirection is introduced. Using the same units is only part of the issue. And nowhere is this more apparent than in the recent and rapidly spreading online conspiracy theory that 3.0 is greater than 0.85. To get to the bottom of the matter we consulted our specialist disinformation specialists team to find out where this false narrative is coming from and why it is fake news. This is what they had to say:

“This particularly damaging example of misinformation seems to have started with the publication of a study that showed how climate models have predicted that climate change will lead to a 0.85 metre rise in sea level within the next century for the South Eastern city of Jakarta.”

But is this particular 0.85 actually equal to 0.85? Well, according to our fact-checkers, the answer seems to be ‘probably’.

“According to the models, the figure of 0.85m is the most likely extent of the sea level rise, but the models contain a lot of uncertainties. Accordingly, the value of 0.85 is just a guess. Furthermore, it is based upon a premised 5oC warming relative to 1870, which is far from certain. However, it is a very worrying figure, and that is what is important.”

Yes, but how does this explain why some deniers have wrongly come to the conclusion that 3.0 is greater than this figure?

“Well, if we were dealing with an even greater level of global warming, the models would indeed predict an even greater sea level rise, possibly even 3 metres or more. In such circumstances 3.0 would certainly be greater than 0.85 because that would be an even more worrying impact of climate change. But that is not where this particular 3.0 has come from. This 3.0 is due to the fact that the city of Jakarta has already sunk by over 3 metres in the last 100 years due to subsidence (with 2.5 of that happening in the last decade). And the rate of subsidence is accelerating, so another 100 years may very well result in a further 3 metres of subsidence at the very least.”

But surely that is a lot more worrying than a 0.85 metre sea-level rise and so this 3.0 is more worrying, and hence it is surely greater than 0.85.

“Well, you might think so but you would be applying the naïve mathematics of the climate change denier. That is not how climate risk mathematics works because, according to experts, “sinking land reinforces the problem of climate change-driven sea-level rise“. For something to be a reinforcing factor it cannot, by definition, be of greater magnitude than the factor it is reinforcing. If it were, then the reinforcing would be the other way round. And since a land drop of 1 metre is equivalent to a sea-level rise of 1 metre, the only way in which the subsidiary role of subsidence can be explained is by recognising that 3.0 is actually less than 0.85, despite appearances.”

So is this all about climate change deniers yet again failing to understand how the scientific method works?

“Certainly. And it is a classic case of facts being taken out of context to prove a point. It may be a fact that in disciplines such as civil engineering 3.0 is always greater than 0.85, but that doesn’t mean that the same can be said in climate science, where a huge scientific consensus exists to tell us that sea-level rise due to climate change is the greatest threat faced by coastal cities. Insisting on retaining the narrow (and quite frankly irrelevant) mathematical sense in which 3.0 is greater than 0.85, is tantamount to denying the scientific consensus, and is just typical of the logical flaws employed by the denier. To the layperson, such arguments may appear convincing but to anyone steeped in climate science the claim that 3.0 is greater than 0.85 just doesn’t make any sense because that would mean that subsidence is a greater problem than climate change-driven sea-level rise, which according to nearly every scientist in the world isn’t true. That is why, when the BBC reported on this problem it was keen to stress that subsidence only represents a ‘bigger immediate problem’. In the long term, subsidence is still only reinforcing the problem.”

Are there any other numbers that climate change deniers are pushing as being greater than 0.85?

“Yes. Shanghai and New Orleans had both subsided by more than 2 metres in the 20th century, leading climate change deniers to falsely conclude that such cities are more at risk from simply sinking into the sea over the next hundred years than they are from being overwhelmed by a posited 0.85 metre sea-level rise. They also argue that since Shanghai has obviously adapted to its historical 2 metre subsidence without too much fuss and bother, it should also be able to adapt to a 0.85 metres sea-level rise. Once again, these arguments only make superficial sense due to an insistence on sticking to the inappropriate belief that 2.0 is greater than 0.85, thereby denying the consensus within climate science that climate change-driven sea-level rise poses the greatest risk. In fact, there are a host of numbers that have been falsely deemed to be greater than 0.85 based on the likelihood that the majority of coastal cities in the world will, under their own weight, subside by a figure significantly greater than the magnitude of sea-level rise predicted by climate models (albeit, only greater in that consensus-denying mathematical sense beloved of denialists).”

So there you have it. The science is clear. Climate change will lead to inundation of coastal cities due to sea-level rise unless we immediately abandon fossil fuels. Any suggestion that coastal cities are going to sink anyway, leading to far greater inundations than are predicted by climate models, is a false narrative spread by climate change deniers employing mathematical trickery that fails to take into account the existence of a scientific consensus.

The science is settled. Numbers are just denialist talking points. Consider yourself debunked.

Further Reading:

You may wish to read this for an account of ‘climate reductionism’ and the problems facing Jakarta. The false narrative that subsidence is merely a reinforcing factor is clearly impeding Jakarta from dealing with its flooding problems.

For the standard, approved narrative, in which the scale of the subsidence problem is downplayed and framed as a reinforcing rather than principal factor, you may wish to read what ClimateCheck has to say on the matter.

26 Comments

  1. Does 0.85 is greater than 3.0 actually mean that 0.85 is MORE IMPORTANT than 3.0, then given how you are interpreting those values, climate alarmists would always agree with that proposition. However, a Jakartan resident wouldn’t.

    Like

  2. Alan,

    3.0 may be greater in the mathematical sense that deniers obsess over, but if notoriety and political backing has anything to do with greatness, then 0.85 is probably one of the greatest numbers around. Unless, as you acknowledge, you are talking to someone from Jakarta, in which case there are other numbers that have captured the locals’ attention even more.

    Like

  3. Don’t you just love the Conversation? It makes the Guardian look balanced by comparison.

    Like

  5. Mike,

    At least they have numbers.

    This is true, and a very interesting point. If you may recall, climate scientist Patrick T. Brown caused quite a stir recently by drawing attention to Nature magazine’s preference for the simplified narrative in which climatic causations are quantified but the non-climatic are not. This is one of the manifestations of ‘climate reductionism’. But here we have numbers for both the climatic and non-climatic factors, and it even turns out that the non-climatic dominates. And yet, bizarrely, the standard narrative still treats the climatic as if it were primary! Even with the numbers to demonstrate the true ranking of impact, the standard narrative still wins out. The only casualty is the integrity of basic arithmetic. The power of the established consensus, eh?

    Liked by 1 person

  6. John – excellent example – to be fair the BBC had this from 2013 – The rising and sinking threats to our cities – BBC Future

    PS – see from your 1st link at the end –

    “With more than 40 percent of Jakarta already lying below sea level, scientists have been modeling projections of Jakarta’s coastal floods for the year 2050. The findings of the flood risk are concerning, with the rate of flood area expansion in the next 25 years projected to grow by 3.4 times that of what it has been for the past 25 years. Wary of climate reductionism, geographer Mike Hulme argues that attempting to predict climate-shaped futures downgrades human agency, because it doesn’t take into account how our environmental future is shaped socially, culturally, and politically

    Like

  8. The alarmists also believe the ‘Penrose Triangle’ can easily be built, if you simply throw more taxpayers money at it of course (and after years of failure and £Trillions spent, they’ll just move onto their next idiocy, some far richer than they were)

    Like

  9. Before I wrote “to be fair the BBC had this from 2013” should have read to the end –

    “Coastal cities around the world will likely have to be abandoned and relocated as the cost of saving lives and repairing infrastructure becomes too great. Even important port cities, like New Orleans on the banks of the mighty Mississippi will eventually become unliveable. And these abandoned cities will leave their marks in the sedimentary layers forming all the time, to be discovered like mythical Atlantises by divers of the far future. 

    The coastal cities with the best chances of being preserved for posterity are those built on parts of the Earth’s crust that are being pulled ever so slowly downwards by the movement of tectonic plates, such as London. Cities drowned and then buried in silty blankets will persist in a petrified form. The subways and sewage pipes will perhaps resemble the traces left by some giant burrowing creature, and the deep foundation piles of high-rises will linger as uncharacteristic stripes in the layers of a future cliff. Little will remain of cities built in deserts, such as Las Vegas and Lima, those built at altitude, such as La Paz, and those exposed to violent destruction from cyclones, volcanoes or earthquakes, like Kathmandu.

    These seemingly permanent symbols of our species’ great civilisations are as vulnerable as we are to the ravages of time, and to humanity’s destructive practices. Our industrial pollution is impacting the man-made world as surely as it is affecting the natural world. Millions of years from now, there may be few signs of the mighty cities that have transformed our planet.”

    Like

  10. Dfhunter,

    Whilst we should give credit to the BBC for having written articles that mention the subsidence problem we shouldn’t be too impressed. After all, whilst the article you found is titled ‘The rising and sinking threats to our cities’ nowhere does it make the point that the sinking threat is so much greater than the rising one. In fact, the whole article reads as if subsidence wouldn’t be a problem if it were not for global warming. For example, we have this:

    More than 3 billion people live in coastal areas at risk of global warming impacts such as rising sea levels – a number expected to rise to 6 billion by 2025. Sea-level rise due to climate change has already doubled the risk of extreme flood events in coastal cities, and the greater population of Anthropocene cities only puts more lives at risk. For example, a study shows that during Hurricane Sandy in 2012, as many as 100,000 extra people were at risk of flooding for every foot of water in New York. More than half of the population of America’s coastal cities live below the high-tide mark.

    This narrative that the global warming impact was to blame for the exceptional New York flooding completely fails to mention that the greater problem has been the sinking of the city and the extent to which that has made it more vulnerable to flooding. According to the Journal of Ocean Engineering Science:

    In the New York City area, the likely absolute SLR [since 1950] is about 0.7 to 1.0 mm/yr., the likely relative sea-level acceleration is about +0.008 mm/yr², the likely subsidence is about -2.151 to -3.076 mm/yr., and the likely relative SLR is about -2.851 to -4.076 mm/yr.

    That means that of the relative rise in sea-level since 1950, about 75% had been due to subsidence and only 25% due to other factors. Furthermore, the journal says:

    Although the climate models predict that rising CO2 levels should cause an accelerated sea-level rise, the sea level measurements show that, thus far, there has been no detectable acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise.

    But these are all just numbers, and we know what we denialist do with them with our naïve concepts of scale.

    And yes, all that stuff at the end of the article was just weird.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. We should not forget that sea-level rises, from whatever causes, contribute significantly to flooding threats, irrespectively of any subsidence. Neither should we forget that flooding can be prevented by sea walls. Of course, climate warnings commonly are said to involve both relative sea-level rises and enhanced storm activity, both of which it is claimed have increased in recent years. What this has to do with weird mathematical reasoning, sensu Ridgway, I have little clue, but then increasingly for me such reasoning becomes more and more a closed book.

    Like

  12. Alan,

    It was not the purpose of my article to dispute the threat from rising sea level but to put it in a proper perspective. The allusion to ‘weird mathematical reasoning’ was my satirical effort to draw attention to the mismatch between the data and the narrative. Rather than simply say that the narrative is ignoring the data, I thought it would be fun to suggest instead that the narrative could be rendered data-compliant but only by inventing a new form of mathematics that we empirical sceptics simply fail to understand; one in which the perceived importance of a number can affect its magnitude. The bottom line is that the existence of a consensus seems to be driving the narrative when surely the data should be.

    Like

  13. The relative level of the threat from rising sea levels in such places, when used to bolster the climate crisis mantra, is actually even less. It’s only the result of man-made climate change if and to the extent that sea levels rise is accelerating. If it isn’t accelerating, then the part man-made climate change has to play in these cities ‘ problems is precisely zero (though I would acknowledge that if storminess is increasing there because of human-emitted GHGs, then that could properly be included in any analysis.

    Like

  14. Hallam of Nazareth said similar things about numbers in a sermon he delivered yesterday, although he was equally* scathing about the numbers of both deniers and scientists. Deniers and scientists (except Peter Kalmus) who insist on numbers making sense approach women like they approach maths and communicate about climate change like they communicate about moss. If we are to follow Hallam’s way, we must all stop talking about moss, stop being pervy with women we’ve only just met and just accept that 3.0 really is greater than 0.85. For 3.0 is, in a very real sense, both greater than and less than 0.85. It depends on whether you are a nerd who is trying to avoid emotional pain or you are the guy who runs into a room and shouts, in a thoroughly holistic manner, ‘I don’t give a flying f### about your f###ing certainty analysis – it’s my f###ing children you total d###s!’

    The sermon was called The Mysterious Ways of Love and was a response to criticisms of Hallam’s recent prophecy about heat-related deaths in Phoenix, Arizona, in the 2030s.

    Sometimes the truth is not actually the whole truth – there is another sense of truth which is more appropriate, more real. … when I say, “12% of Phoenix are going to die” I am not really saying 12% of Phoenix are going to die. I am not talking about moss – I am making an emotional, rhetorical and entirely appropriate statement. A deeply true statement in the holistic sense. I know 12% of Phoenix might ACTUALLY not die. But that is not the point. The point is this world is so f###ed up because we just sit there and continue watching Netflix when we are in this beyond f###ing f###ed situation. Get it yet? What I am ACTUALLY saying is “Wake the f### up you f###ing d###s.” … Let’s just accept it – and come together in love. It has to be our only hope.

    There endeth the effing lesson.

    ===
    *Or almost equally. He spake thus: ‘I prefer the deniers any day over the complacent repression of the “educated” classes. Wasn’t this why Jesus hung out with the low life rather than the Pharisees and lawyers?’

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Mark,

    If I may, I’d like to explain why this sort of thing bugs me so much.

    Over the years, my career entailed the analysis, evaluation, ranking and management of risks of varying nature including project schedule, health and safety, IT security, environmental and functional safety risk. The different disciplines employed different methods for identifying and evaluating threats and hazards, associated vulnerabilities and exposures, potential impacts and the uncertainties inherent in the various assessments. But in all cases, the unifying theme was that risks should be ranked in terms of urgency and importance so that a rational way forward could be established. However, this fundamental principle of approach seems not to apply when climate change risk is involved. It isn’t so much that the science is being botched or manipulated, it is more that the risk assessment has become so highly politicised, to the extent that the approved narrative reflecting the relative magnitude of risk bears no relationship to any objective evaluation based upon data. And that’s before we take into account the various arguments for the threats and hazards, associated vulnerabilities and exposures, potential impacts and the uncertainties inherent in Net Zero.

    Having my professional background I was understandably keen to investigate just how much expertise and understanding lay behind the risk management approach advocated by the likes of the IPCC. That is why I was so keen to see what the IPCC had to say in AR5, WG3, Chapter 2, ‘Integrated Risk and Uncertainty Assessment of Climate Change Response Policies‘, and that is why I was so disturbed when I found so much emphasis on psychological manipulation and so little on the basic principles of risk and uncertainty management. It goes a long way towards explaining how 3.0 can come to be less than 0.85.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Vinny,

    Thank you for that very germane Hallam quote. My suggestion that there is a strange new mathematical logic at play that is going above our poor little denialist heads does not look so fanciful when you take on board Hallam’s idea of there being a fuller truth that is “emotional, rhetorical and entirely appropriate” We might insist that 3.0 being greater than 0.85 is a true statement in the mathematical sense but Hallam would argue that 0.85 being the greater is “A deeply true statement in the holistic sense”. I wish I shared his genius to be able to break the shackles of something as shallow as number theory.

    Like

  17. You’re right, John. I got things upside down. Hallam would argue that 0.85 is greater.

    Speaking of upside down, his Humanity Project (which probably isn’t his any more) has several mottoes, the most prominent being ‘The only way is bottom-up’.

    Then there’s Cranky Uncle Lew, who is keen on ‘bottom-up inoculation interventions’.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. My apologies Vinny – it took me far to long to spot that you had been in spam again.

    Like

  19. And my apologies to you Mark. This is my thread and I should really be working a lot harder to look out for lost comments rather than leaving it to you.

    Like

  20. Thanks, Mark. (I’m going to post this with uBlock Origin disabled.)

    Like

  21. It seems to me that climate change science’s version of mathematics has been at play again. Regarding the recent reporting of the rise of dengue fever in Europe, the headline reads:

    “Tiger mosquitoes behind dengue fever rise in Europe”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce5520m6x2go

    The article explains how a climate change-driven increase in European mosquito numbers has led to a ‘dengue fever rise in Europe’. Specifically, there was an increase of 71 to 130 locally-acquired infections in 2023. And all of this is due to climate change, of course.

    One might suspect that there may be other reasons for the increase, other than through locally-acquired infections, but such an effect would have to be far smaller for the narrative of climate change causation to hold true. What about imported cases, for example? How much smaller than 130 is that number? Well:

    Most European cases are imported – a reflection of the international movement of people and trade, with imported cases soaring to nearly 5,000 last year.

    Yes, you’re right. The headline made it clear. Mosquitoes and not aeroplanes are behind the rise, and so 130 must be far greater than 5000.

    Liked by 3 people

  22. On a global scale sea level rise is a major concern, localised subsidence of populated areas represents a reinforcing factor that serves to increase the overall impact of sea level rise.
    At a local level it’s entirely possible for land subsidence and other environmental problems to be the primary concern and for global sea level rise to be a secondary concern or a reinforcing factor.

    When defining your terms , you need to state the context. That context involves being clear about both the timescale and the geographical scale to which those terms are being applied.

    Mathematical Modeling and various other scientific or professional disciplines become impossible without appropriate attention to the definition of the terms used , including reference to wether that context is Global vs Local or Short vs Long Term.

    At a Global level some area of land are rising and others are falling. A number of environmental factors are involved in climatic geomorphology including perhaps most obviously coastal erosion.

    For Dunwich, a sunken town off the east coast of the UK clearly Global warming did not represent a relevant factor in its demise.

    At a global level however sea level rise potentially brings with it a range of problems including forced migration from highly populated areas and potential disruption to food supplies.

    For Kiribati , The Maldives , Vanuatu , Tuvalu , Solomon Islands, Samoa and Nauru Rising sea levels are by far the major factor leading to the loss of land and property.
    somewhere between 0.2 to 0.4m of sea level rise would render Tuvalu uninhabitable, and it is on that basis that negotiations for the projected forced migration have been undertaken with Australia.

    Like

  23. Jago,

    Thank you for your comment. You have eloquently summarised the prevalent narrative, and yet, with all due respect, I still believe there is much that is wrong with it.

    Firstly, you maintain that whilst subsidence may be a problem that is primary at a local level, when viewed in a global context it still takes on a secondary role. The difficulty I have with that view is that whilst it is true that subsidence, by definition, is a local problem it seems to be a local problem that is globally widespread, to the extent that it dominates more often than not. The key statistics are provided in one of the links included within my article. From the study’s abstract:

    We measured subsidence rates in 99 coastal cities around the world between 2015 and 2020 using the PS Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar method and Sentinel-1 data. In most cities, part of the land is subsiding faster than sea level is rising.

    In the body of the report, details are provided:

    In most cities, part of the city is sinking faster than 2 mm/yr LOS. In 33 of the 99 cities, part of the city is sinking equal to or more than 10 mm/yr LOS—≥5x faster than global mean sea level is rising. These cities with fast sinking regions are located throughout the world, including in Europe, North America, Africa, and Australia. The cities where subsidence has been the fastest (over 20 mm/yr LOS) from 2015 to 2020 are in South, Southeast, and East Asia. The highest subsidence rates appear in Tianjin, Semarang, and Jakarta, where maximum rates exceed 30 mm/yr LOS—dwarfing global mean sea level rise by almost 15x.

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022GL098477

    From this I have concluded that, to the extent that sea incursion of the most populated coastal regions is a major concern, that concern primarily arises from subsidence, even when viewed globally. Yes, the study makes it clear that it isn’t necessarily the whole city that is affected, and yes, the subsidence problem is more prevalent in some parts of the world than others. Nevertheless, it still strikes me as being far too prevalent to be relegated to a secondary concern on a global scale.

    Secondly, I fail to see the relevance of the timescales involved. It is the relative scale of impact, rather than the duration required for the threat to materialise that determines the correct use of the term ‘reinforcing’. For example, a short-term subsidence of 2m is not reinforcing a long-term sea-level rise of 1m.

    Thirdly, part of the problem with concentrating attention on the long-term sea-level rise caused by climate change is that it tends to distract from the threat posed by more immediate subsidence. This means that even when subsidence is locally the primary threat (as it is in Jakarta), it is still treated politically as though it were secondary. This is the concern raised by the article I cite in the footnote:

    As Jakarta Sinks, the Rising Sea Presents a Convenient Scapegoat

    https://failedarchitecture.com/as-jakarta-sinks-the-rising-sea-presents-a-convenient-scapegoat/

    Finally, but as an aside, we shouldn’t forget that the sea-level rise predictions that compete on a scale with subsidence are produced by mathematical models that assume worse case scenarios. Furthermore, the models are riddled with epistemic uncertainties that lead to very wide error bars. Therefore, one’s views on how uncertainty should affect the decision-making process become very germane.

    Liked by 3 people

  24. It has been brought to my attention that a preoccupation with numbers and their ordinal properties is just a colonial and racist ploy to deny indigenous peoples their rightful place in the history of mathematics. What I should be focused upon instead is so-called ‘Indigenous Mathematics’, in which numbers are simply superfluous. As Professor Rowena Ball puts it:

    Mathematics has been gatekept by the West and defined to exclude entire cultures. Almost all mathematics that students have ever come across is European-based. We would like to enrich the discipline through the inclusion of cross-cultural mathematics.

    https://science.anu.edu.au/news-events/news/maths-has-no-borders-professor-rowena-ball-brings-indigenous-mathematics-anu

    Actually, almost all of the mathematics that students have ever come across owes its origins to the Greeks, Persians and early occupants of the Indian Subcontinent. European colonialism just doesn’t come into it, other than to say that it proved an effective way of introducing other cultures to the power of mathematics. By which I mean, of course, that odd variant of mathematics that we all learnt at school, including as it did the colonialist concepts of number and the rules of arithmetic. All very superfluous if you possess the wisdom of the indigenous. As Ball puts it:

    Numbers and arithmetic and accounting often are of secondary importance in Indigenous mathematics.

    You might think this is all bullshit but it is all the rage in Australia:

    https://unherd.com/breaking_news/top-university-introduces-indigenous-maths/

    And it carries the endorsement of the Guardian, so who are we to scoff?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/28/forty-thousand-years-of-indigenous-maths-can-get-kids-into-numbers-today

    Liked by 2 people

  25. John, I think this fits your argument:

    “Fewer swallows grace summer skies in Britain amid changing climate

    Unpredictable weather affecting bird’s lifecycle, with breeding populations down by almost a quarter”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/20/fewer-swallows-britain-summer-skies-climate-change

    …A mixture of wet springs and summer droughts, leading to major falls in numbers of the flying insects on which they feed, has reduced the swallow’s breeding population by almost a quarter in the past 25 years or so….

    …Once again, our changing climate is to blame; but this comes on top of the huge loss of insects caused by modern industrial agriculture. This is ironic, given that the swallow’s success over the past few millennia began when it adapted to living alongside farmers, nesting in their barns, and feeding on insects attracted by their livestock.

    Like

  26. You wonder if Guardian editors check what’s in different articles available at the same time. This one makes not a mention of climate change with regard to the decline of insects in the UK:

    “‘I have seen the decline’: pesticides linked to falling UK insect numbers

    Experts say invertebrates are exposed to range of chemicals, some of which are 10,000 times more toxic than DDT”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/19/i-have-seen-the-decline-pesticides-linked-to-falling-uk-insect-numbers

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.