Correct word

All The Arthropods That Call Earth's Land Home Weigh More Than Humans And Livestock
Without the buzzing, fluttering, scuttling or creeping crawlies our world would be in strife. Yet we don't even know some of the most basic things about these arthropods like butterflies, spiders and centipedes, such as how many of these important components of our world's biosphere are even out there.

So researchers crunched some numbers to arrive at a startling conclusion: despite their miniscule size, the collective global mass of all terrestrial arthropods is about the same as all humans and their farm animals combined.

No wonder they have such a massive impact on the world we live in.

"Arthropods have been described as 'the little things that run the world' because of their central role in multiple ecological processes," explains Weizmann Institute of Science environmental scientist Yuval Rosenberg.

"We must take them into account if we're to fully understand humanity's impact on the planet and the possible consequences of climate change."

So Rosenberg and colleagues amassed 7,000 measurements from the scientific literature. From deserts to farms to rain forests, these records include all the major terrestrial habitat types, scattered across 300 locations around the world.

They categorized the records into soil (including plant litter) and above ground (surface and plant associated bugs) arthropods, because of the very different sampling techniques involved for each group.

The data suggests most of that 1 billion tons worth of arthropods are found snugly tucked on or within our planet's skin.

Do Not Feed The Climate Trolls
Over the past two weeks, something unprecedented has happened on ScienceAlert's page. And we need to talk about it.

As members of the Covering Climate Now initiative, we recently strengthened our coverage of climate change. We also proudly supported the Global Climate Strike on 20 September 2019, a day that saw over four million people staging protests around the world, demanding climate action as signs of environmental breakdown rapidly encompass our little blue marble.

It's not strange that a science news publication would talk about climate change and its impact on the world. But the responses that started flooding our page seemed strange indeed, until we realised what's really going on.

Our readers have expressed surprise at just how many climate change deniers appear to be following us. Lately, every time we post a climate news article on Facebook, with astonishing speed and ferocity the comment section becomes a hot-pot of climate denialism.

Posts will receive hundreds of comments in a short amount of time, often in wild disproportion to the actual reach of the post, or the readership of the article itself. Those metrics are a clear sign the engagement is not organic, but is coming from a targeted source.

As public acceptance of climate science continues to shift towards the scientific consensus, the insidious lobbies who have long-funded climate change denial are mobilising. Their goal is to erode the "consensus gap" between climate scientists and the public. It's nothing new.

But they have started gathering on a new battleground: polluting the comment sections on social media, to make it appear that even readers of science websites like ours don't agree with climate science. Yeah, we're on to them. We're calling them climate trolls.

We don't know where these climate trolls roost. Maybe they come from self-organising grassroots groups with secret pages. Perhaps the fact they all use the same language and the same memes is indicative of receiving talking points and funding from the fossil fuel industry. Perhaps.

What matters is that ScienceAlert's page is being targeted, and we are taking action.

We're a small team of hard-working people. Over the years, our dedication to sharing science news with the world has earned ScienceAlert more than 10 million monthly readers. And with such great reach comes great responsibility.

Here's The Real Truth About That Confusing Red Meat Study
There's something almost mythical in a perfect steak. While it seems like a very simple thing to do - throw a bit of meat on the grill, cook until done - there's an art to getting steak right that takes the humble hunk of cow from a boring dish into a masterpiece of culinary skill.

There are few things better than a really well-cooked piece of red meat.

The problem is that the deliciousness of red meat has long been considered to be outweighed by its side-effects. Study after study has found that red meat is associated with poor health for any number of reasons - it may cause cancer, it's associated with heart disease, and it could even cause diabetes. These findings have led to many guidelines recommending people eat a bit less red meat to improve their health.

But now, according to headlines from across the world, all of that has changed. A controversial new study has proven that actually there's no evidence that eating red meat is bad for us, and that we can go ahead and gorge on steak and burgers once again.

On the other hand, headlines have hit out saying that this new research is nonsense, and that it could be deadly if people start eating more meat. This seems like a contradiction - either red meat is or isn't good for us, surely?

The answer, as you might have guessed, is very complicated, but it boils down to a simple fact: nutrition science is far harder than most people assume.