The worth of celebrities

[Brian Ellis]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6224859.stm

I couldn't agree more, but I would add that many non-celebrities also propagate bad science.

A chacun son métier!

[Dr Mordrid]

I couldn't agree more, but I would add that many non-celebrities also propagate bad science.

And bad politics

[GNEP]

I entirely agree with the sentiment. However this is clearly an article written as a topped-and-tailed press release from here:

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/

Again, I fully support their ideal. However I think they need to get their own house in order before criticising others - only anecdotal evidence I'm afraid, but I looked at their "Energy Gap" paper. The first line of the second column had my heckles rising already... then scanning down saw them being a little, er, inconsistent with units... could be argued that they are leaving their sources unedited. But then look at note 1 - I never knew that a tonne of oil had the same energy content as a Kit Kat! No wonder I find it so easy to put on weight.

Overall, that document reads like an opinion piece itself, not a summary of science evidence. And peer-reviewed? I don't think it's even been proof-read

I'm possibly over keen to criticise; if their aim really really is purely representative of unbiased science, then great and I apologise. It's just there's something about that site that makes me suspicious; there's something that shouts either "government funded quango" or "lobbyists" about it. It would just be too easy for a particular political party to point to the sense about science website saying "see? we are right the other parties are wrong and all the scientists in the world agree" without ever explaining that real science is not always about "100% right" and "100% wrong" but good and healthy debate and exploration of facts, with a constant recognition that any theories we have are only ever " the best explanation we've got so far" and never "the final, right answer".

[KRSESQ]

But then look at note 1 - I never knew that a tonne of oil had the same energy content as a Kit Kat!

From the pdf in question, note 1:

1 tonne of oil equivalent = 107 kilocalories, 396.83 therms, 41.868 gigajoules, 11,630 kWh

That would be one hell of a Kit-Kat!

Kevin

[KRSESQ]

A little more looking shows that one gigajoule = 239 million calories. At 41.868 Gj/tonne, that's closer to 10,000,000,000 calories per tonne of oil!

(Unless I'm figuring this wrong, which is a distinct possibility.)

Kevin

[cjolley]

NB: dietetic calories are really kilo calories.

(I haven't read the thing and am not expressing an opinion)

[ZokesPro]

I agree with the article but celebrities just don't care.

[GNEP]

Yep to Chuck and Kevin - I figured 1 toe was about 10 GCal (1 cal is about 4.18 joules)

And a 2-finger Kit-Kat is 107 kilocalories (in the UK and probably the rest of Europe food packaging has started displaying kCal when they mean kCal AFAIK, and not Cal... so finally dietary calories are the same as a real calorie, at least on the packaging... newspapers and books probably haven't caught on yet.)

So yes, the person writing this article was probably having a little snack at the time