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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-01-15 07:43 am (UTC)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
Date: 2009-01-15 08:09 am (UTC)And I am assuming that the Telegraph is as reliable as the STAR or the INQUIRER? :)
no subject
Date: 2009-01-15 01:39 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2009-01-15 04:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-15 07:51 pm (UTC)