In the headline, it says "about the same as a boiling kettle". In the first five sentences, they say it produces an estimated 7g of CO2 (a suspect number not backed up by real data), vs. a boiling kettle at 15g.
Last time I checked, 7 was *LESS THAN HALF* of 15.
Of course, then the article goes on to mention *several* other metrics from a variety of sources, all radically different from each other, including Google.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
In the headline, it says "about the same as a boiling kettle". In the first five sentences, they say it produces an estimated 7g of CO2 (a suspect number not backed up by real data), vs. a boiling kettle at 15g.
Last time I checked, 7 was *LESS THAN HALF* of 15.
For small values of "7", of course ;-)
Gods I hate the Telegraph.
no subject
And I am assuming that the Telegraph is as reliable as the STAR or the INQUIRER? :)
no subject
Of course, then the article goes on to mention *several* other metrics from a variety of sources, all radically different from each other, including Google.
Pseudo-science is evil.
no subject
no subject