TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    Business

    More or Less

    Tim Harford explains – and sometimes debunks – the numbers and statistics used in political debate, the news and everyday life.

    Advertise

    Copyright: © (C) BBC 2026

    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    Are refugees more likely to commit crime? May 20, 2026
    Show notes

    Tim Harford investigates some of the numbers in the news. On the programme:

    Last week, Annunziata Rees-Mogg took to X to post a claim about the proportion of sex offences in Dorset that are committed by asylum seekers, writing that “asylum seekers make up 0.8% of Dorset’s population and 44% of alleged sex offenses. So unbelievable I had to check.” We checked too, and the number isn’t right.

    In the last series of More or Less we suggested that nuclear power plant Hinkley C was spending so much on protecting the fish population that it would cost something like £250,000 per fish saved. We’ve had to take a look at that one too.

    Last year, we looked at a report by the Bible Society based on polling from YouGov. The Quiet Revival suggested that churchgoing was on the rise in the UK, with young men leading the trend. YouGov now have an update on that survey.

    How many caterpillars does a blue tit chick eat before it leaves the nest? In a recent nature documentary, Sir David Attenborough said the right number was 20,000. We’re not so sure.

    If you’ve seen a number in the news you think we should take a look at, email the more or Less team: moreorless@bbc.co.uk

    CONTRIBUTORS:

    Madeleine Sumption, Director of the Migration Observatory at Oxford University Professor David Voas, Emeritus Professor of Social Science in the UCL Social Research Institute Annette Jäckle, Professor of Survey Methodology at the University of Essex and a Deputy Director of the UK Household Longitudinal Study Dr Malcolm Burgess, Principal Conservation Scientist at the RSPB

    CREDITS

    Presenter: Tim Harford Reporter: Lizzy McNeill Producer: Nathan Gower and Josh McGinn Series producer: Tom Colls Production co-ordinator: Brenda Brown Sound mix: James Beard Editor: Richard Vadon


    Erdos Problem 1196: Can AI now solve maths that no human can? May 16, 2026
    Show notes

    It is said that AI could soon be coming for the jobs of artists, lawyers, and software engineers. But it might now also be threatening a role at the height of academia – are pure mathematicians safe? Last month, a Stanford mathematician woke up to an email, claiming to have the solution to a problem he had been working on for seven years - a 60-year-old conundrum known as Erdos Problem 1196. The answer had been generated in just 80 minutes - by ChatGPT. Since the end of last year, AI has been providing solutions to a number of novel maths problems, but Problem 1196 is the first to raise eyebrows within the mathematical community. In this episode, we talk to the mathematicians who have worked on Problem 1196 and find out what the rise of AI could mean for the future of their field. Our contributors include Katie Steckles, Mathematician and communicator, Jared Duker Lichtman, Szegő assistant professor of mathematics at Stanford University and Liam Price, amateur mathematician. Presenter: Charlotte McDonald Producer: Josh McMinn Sound engineer: Dave O'Neill Editor: Richard Vadon


    Why it’s wrong to say vaping is as bad for you as smoking May 09, 2026
    Show notes

    According to the World Health organisation, smoking kills some 7 million people every year. It is one of the world’s leading causes of preventable death. Because smoking causes lung cancer and other awful health conditions, many smokers switch to vaping - using nicotine-based e-cigarettes.

    But the World Health organisation is also concerned about vaping. Last year they said 100 million people around the world are now using e-cigarettes, including millions of children, and warned that they were fuelling a new wave of nicotine addiction.

    But how do the health risks of these two means of getting nicotine into your bloodstream compare?

    According to a recent headline in the Daily Mail, they’re basically the same. Here’s the headline:

    “Vaping is linked to lung and mouth cancer in major study, as experts warn: 'It is NOT safer than smoking’”

    But is vaping really just as bad for you as smoking?

    CONTRIBUTOR:

    Professor Lion Shahab, Co-Director of the UCL Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group

    CREDITS:

    Presenter: Charlotte McDonald Reporter/producer: Tom Colls Production co-ordinator: Brenda Brown Sound mix: Dave O’Neil Editor: Richard Vadon


    Does it take 15,000 litres of water to produce a kilogram of beef? May 02, 2026
    Show notes

    If you spend much time on social media, and we don’t necessarily recommend it, then you’ve probably come across a strange fascination with water consumption.

    Mainly, this is people telling you that using AI is terrible for the planet because of how much water it uses. We’ve already made a couple of programmes about the numbers in those arguments and, long story short, they probably aren’t saying what you think they’re saying.

    But on platforms like X, BlueSky, and TikTok, an opportunity to keep an argument going is rarely missed.

    And one of the numbers that’s been enlisted in that glorious cause concerns the water that’s used for a seemingly unrelated past-time - eating beef. Here’s an example from a user on X:

    “A kilogram of beef requires over 15,000 litres of water to produce,” they wrote. “A vegan who uses ChatGPT every day is living a more sustainable lifestyle than someone who regularly eats beef while boycotting AI.”

    Ignoring the AI part, is that true? Does it actually take 15,000 litres of water to produce a kilogram of beef?

    It turns out that the number isn’t wrong, but it probably isn’t saying what you think it’s saying.

    If you’ve seen a number you think we should take a look at, email the More or Less team: moreorless@bbc.co.uk

    CONTRIBUTORS: Mesfin Mekonnen, Assistant Professor at the University of Alabama Mark Mulligan, Professor of Physical and Environmental Geography at King's College London Tim Hess, Professor of Water and Food Systems at Cranfield University CREDITS: Presenter: Charlotte McDonald Producer: Mhairi MacKenzie Series producer: Tom Colls Production co-ordinator: Brenda Brown Sound mix: Emma Harth Editor: Richard Vadon


    Have RFK and MAHA really changed American views on vaccines? Apr 25, 2026
    Show notes

    Vaccine policy in the US is something of an ideological battleground. Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr is a vaccine sceptic, and since taking office he has attempted to remake US vaccine policy. In March a judge blocked his proposal to cut the number of jabs that are recommended for kids.

    At the same time, last year saw the worst measles outbreak in the US in decades. There were more than 2000 cases last year, and three people died. There have been more than 1500 cases so far in 2026.

    There’s a lot going on, so it’s possible the public’s views on vaccination are shifting.

    A new poll published by online news site Politico added a big claim into the mix. According to the headline “more Americans doubt vaccine safety than trust it”.

    But is that what the survey actually found?

    Dr David Higgins, a paediatrician and public health assistant professor who writes a Substack called Community Immunity, explains why he believes the headline is misleading.

    If you've seen a number in the news you think we should take a look at, email moreorless@bbc.co.uk

    Presenter: Charlotte McDonald Sound engineer: Neil Churchill Production co-ordinator: Brenda Brown Editor: Richard Vadon


    Is Trump right that wind turbines are killing millions of birds? Apr 18, 2026
    Show notes

    US president Donald Trump is no fan of wind turbines, or windmills as he calls them.

    Not only does he think they ruin the view from a golf course he owns in Scotland, but they are also deadly to birds.

    “If you love birds, you’d never want to walk under a windmill,” he said in 2019.

    “It’s a very sad, sad sight. It’s like a cemetery. We put a little statue for the poor birds.”

    Earlier this year he posted on Truth Social saying that wind turbines were killing “millions” of birds.

    But is that true? We speak to Dr Hannah Ritchie, Deputy Editor at Our World in Data and senior researcher at the University of Oxford, who has dug into the numbers on bird mortality and wind turbines.

    Credits:

    Presenter: Charlotte McDonald Producer: Mhairi MacKenzie Series producer: Tom Colls Production co-ordinator: Brenda Brown Sound mix: Sue Maillot Editor: Richard Vadon


    Dr Spock’s dangerous advice on baby sleep Apr 11, 2026
    Show notes

    Sometimes it is obvious to everyone when an idea is harmful, or a piece of advice is damaging. But not always. Occasionally bad ideas and terrible advice end up being accepted in society and supported by people in authority.

    In such circumstances, one of the most powerful tools for changing people's minds is evidence – scientific studies that show beyond doubt that the bad idea is, indeed, a bad idea.

    That's the subject of a new book by Helen Pearson, titled Beyond Belief: How Evidence Shows What Really Works.

    An editor at the scientific journal Nature in her day job, the book chronicles those determined individuals who shake up the status quo by gathering just the right kind of evidence.

    One story in that book stood out to us on More or Less as it shows just what happens when you don't have the evidence you need to challenge a dangerous way of doing things.

    It's the story of a piece of advice from childcare expert Dr Benjamin Spock.

    In a 1958 revision of his bestselling parenting guide Baby and Childcare he made a small change to his advice on sleeping position – advising parents to put their babies to sleep on their front.

    It eventually became clear that this sleeping position was associated with a significant increase in the risk of sudden infant death, or cot death.

    CREDITS:

    Presenter: Charlotte McDonald Series producer: Tom Colls Production co-ordinator: Brenda Brown Sound mix: Rod Farquhar Editor: Richard Vadon


    How likely is ‘likely’? Apr 04, 2026
    Show notes

    When you’re listening to the news, you will often hear words that are meant to communicate the probability of something happening.   A terrorist attack is “a realistic possibility”, the spread of a certain strain of virus is “highly likely", the relegation of your favourite football team is “possible”.

    But when you hear these terms, do you really know what kind of probabilities they’re trying to convey? Do you know how likely “likely” is? Or what probability “probable” is meant to get across?

    In some cases, it seems you probably don't.

    Professor Adam Kucharski, author of Proof, the Uncertain Science of Certainty, designed a quiz to work out the actual probabilities of the language we use to convey risks.

    The data he got back shows how sometimes these words mean very different things to different people.

    If you want to try the quiz for yourself, head over to https://probability.kucharski.io/

    Email the More or Less team: moreorless@bbc.co.uk

    CREDITS:

    Presenter: Charlotte McDonald Series producer: Tom Colls Production co-ordinator: Brenda Brown Sound mix: Gareth Jones Editor: Richard Vadon


    How much water does AI consume? Mar 28, 2026
    Show notes

    As Artificial Intelligence continues to expand rapidly, some people have raised concerns about its potential environmental impact - in particular its use of water, which is used to cool both data centres and the power generators that supply them with electricity.

    One recent book on AI contained the alarming prediction that AI could consume between 4 and 6 trillion litres a year by 2027. Could this eye-popping figure be right? If not, what is the correct figure, and is it a big number?

    The devil, as ever, is in the detail, and with the help of expert Alex de Vries-Gao, the More or Loss team has taken a deep dive to get to the truth about AI and water consumption.

    If you’ve seen a number in the news and you think More or Less should take a look, email the team on moreorless@bbc.co.uk

    Presenter: Charlotte McDonald Producer / Reporter: Nathan Gower Series Producer: Tom Colls Programme Coordinator: Brenda Brown Sound Mix: Dave O’Neil Editor: Richard Vadon


    Paul Ehrlich: The man who bet England wouldn’t exist by the year 2000 Mar 21, 2026
    Show notes

    Paul Ehrlich’s bestselling book The Population Bomb opens with an apocalyptic paragraph.

    “The battle to feed all of humanity is over,” it states. “In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

    Professor Ehrlich, who died last week, made a simple argument. The global population was outrunning our capacity to produce enough food to feed everyone. Famine, disease and nuclear Armageddon would follow if the population was not controlled.

    The book made him a celebrity, and he regularly spoke in public, warning of the imminent threat to humanity.

    Sometimes his warnings were quite vague in terms of the timescale, but other times not - he was reported as saying in 1968 that if current trends continued, by the year 2000, the UK would be a “small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people". "If I were a gambler," he was quoted as saying, "I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000".

    But the UK did not collapse, the global death rate did not increase, and we have more food per person now than when he wrote the book.

    So, what went wrong with Paul Ehrlich's predictions of a population apocalypse?

    If you’ve seen a number or claim that you think More or Less should look at, email moreorless@bbc.co.uk CONTRIBUTORS

    Vincent Geloso, Assistant Professor of economics at George Mason University

    Darrell Bricker, global CEO of Ipsos Public Affairs and co-author of Empty Planet, the Shock of Global Population Decline

    Peter Alexander, Professor of Global Food Systems at the University of Edinburgh

    CREDITS:

    Presenter: Charlotte McDonald Series producer: Tom Colls Production co-ordinator: Brenda Brown Sound mix: Dave O’Neil Editor: Richard Vadon


    Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 115 Next

    Related Podcasts

    How I Built This with Guy Raz

    1

    How I Built This with Guy Raz Business
    Planet Money

    2

    Planet Money Business
    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters

    3

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters Business
    BiggerPockets Real Estate Podcast

    4

    BiggerPockets Real Estate Podcast Business
    The Smart Passive Income Online Business and Blogging Podcast

    5

    The Smart Passive Income Online Business and Blogging Podcast Business
    A Thousand Natural Shocks With Gabe S. Dunn

    6

    A Thousand Natural Shocks With Gabe S. Dunn Business
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights