Should we worry that the BBC correspondent does not know that trees are plants? Especially given that BBC bitesize is such a popular teaching resource for children, or are these two completely different things?
Here is a longer version of the article Wisley: Site by M25 in Surrey to be restored to heathland - BBC News where the ‘trees are not plants’ implication is not made. Perhaps it was down to the person or technology who produced the words for the smartphone version being too sloppy.
Have seen the ‘trees are not plants’ implication made in a whole bunch of supposedly respectable places recently and it is often because they are trying to use some other kind of taxonomy with explicitly stating it. For example putting all tall things together but as soon as you go away from the standard biological taxonomy then you really need to state what you are doing and why or it just confuses everyone especially those who are trying to learn about the subject.
It must surely have been written by a swivel-chair warmer as opposed to someone who is prepared to get off there back side and visit the location.
I have in the past seen the location and feel that the most difficult job would be getting rid of the feral rhododendron bushes.
I reckon quite a bit of the pine would die off due to wind and dry summers anyway leaving a heath with the odd isolated pine tree.
There is a disused airport there too.
Obviously AI is the toy that the swivel-chair warming community have been dreaming about for generations.
I once proposed doing some trivial science like we used to see in exam questions.
I was going to try and calculate the energy cost of keeping the swivel-chair seat warm.
This would involve working out how much heat comes out of the swivel-chair warmers backside and the number of sitting hours per year.
You just divide the salary by the amount of heat per year to get £ per KWH.
