Printable View
Breathing contributes to global warming. You know what you need to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Thought for the day: should we cut basic/crucial things for the sake of climate balance, or should we cut reckless and powerhungry industry pollutions that only benefit the company's owner?
PS: the industry pollutes a few thousand times more than the internet user.
It looks like you didn't read the article I posted.
"Some studies estimate the internet will be producing 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gases in a decade. That is clearly the wrong direction. That is clearly unsustainable," added St. Arnaud.
Deery, you just thanked a person for creating an internet post, and you contributed to internet activity yourself by doing so. Shame on you! :tomato:
Weird.
I remember reading an article a couple days ago with an identical premise. The title was something like "Internet Fuels Global Warming". The problem with the article is that it was complete trash because it was talking about how the internet is used to sell and trade endangered species. Obviously, if the internet wasn't around, people would still be selling and trading endangered species.
It comes across as if they are grasping at straws to try and shut down the Internet.
P.S. I'll see if I can find the article.
rofl, I love that people cant see the sarcasm in this. (the post that is, the article is trying to be dead serious)
either way, Ive said it before, and Ill say it again. Even people who think man made global warming is bogus still wouldnt be against cleaner fuels, less pollution, etc. Thats all well and good especially since we will need it in the future no matter what. Its just that the global warming stuff can be used as a sorry as hell excuse for more taxation and blatant government expansion.
Yeah, I agree. I have been worried about this ever since global warming became a powerful political tool.Quote:
Originally Posted by tkdyo
It seems a little ironic that the internet appears to be the target now.
I did in fact read the article. Shame on you for not even reading my previous post (before Kromoh's).Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/814/faillolcat.jpg
OMG look what I just did there!
I did read that post. On the next page, I posted this again...
No matter who is to blame for how the current energy situation works, the current energy situation is what it is, and there you are leaving post after post. Obviously you don't care about the environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
http://www.progressillinois.com/files/images/smog.jpg
Knock it off!
Found the article. Lovely trend.
Demise of coral, salamander show impact of Web
What will they think of next? Internet fuels obesity?:lol:
Ever wondered if that relative "increase" is but a decrease in all other factors? Especially here in a decade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Reading science requires some thinking, you know.
Whatever helps you feel better about "winning" a petty argument by not posting legitimate thoughts. Do you try to be a thoughtless troll or does it just come naturally?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
It takes years of daily practice under an 80 feet waterfall. So I've heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer
Internet > Everything cept my Girlfriend.
So much that the 20% would be not too significant? Yes, please do think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
How dare you make another post on the internet!Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer
The 20% is irrelevant? Oh, I get it. You are stumped and squirming. You have my sympathy.
I read an article about birth control recently.
Essentially, the research presented that not only does birth control prevent a woman from being impregnated, but it also increases her life span. Obviously, the intent behind the article is to get women to take birth control, not just for controlling birth, but to take it with the idea that it is the fountain of youth or will prevent death by providing longevity.
The research is completely flawed because they didn't take demographics into account. If they had, most likely they would have found a decrease in life span.
I assume the premise is population control. That is not Science, yet this is the type of Science being used to back global warming etc..
Fun fact: overpopulation is the #1 reason of global warming.
Now back to where we were...
Actually, no. It is due to inefficiency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
No it doesn't.Quote:
Breathing contributes to global warming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
You do realize that desperately clinging to one statistic that doesn't even cite its sources is unscientific? I'll bet you were giddily jumping up and down when you found this article.Quote:
"I don't think we've done a good deal with articulating the fact that IT is inherently an efficiency tool," said Teetzel. "That is why you and I use the internet now to find out a lot of information that would have previously been found by us getting in a car and driving somewhere."
"It is a little bit unfair to say that you have this huge carbon cost of the IT industry without articulating the fact that in many, many cases it offsets what I would call heavier, more carbon intense activities that we do in our daily lives," he added.
"Moving electrons is far more efficient than moving atoms. It is actually a paradigm change."
But I know that this thread is just about you trying to be an ass. It's okay to burn out. There are plenty of opportunities for legitimate discussion. Perhaps this should be moved to 'Senseless Banter', since that's what I pick up from your behavior.
Oh, it could be worse. Good excuse. I guess Timothy McVeigh isn't so bad because he didn't kill as many people as Usama Bin Laden. I see what you're saying.
Here's another way of looking at it, though.
This may not seem like a lot: "But in aggregate, if you consider all the people visiting a web site and then all the seconds that each of them spends on it, it turns out to be a large number," says Dr. Alexander Wissner-Gross, an Environmental Fellow at Harvard University who studies the environmental impact of computing.
Wissner-Gross estimates every second someone spends browsing a simple web site generates roughly 20 milligrams of C02. Whether downloading a song, sending an email or streaming a video, almost every single activity that takes place in the virtual environment has an impact on the real one.
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture...rry/DENIAL.png
Yeah right... There wouldn't be industries producing for 6 billion people if there weren't 6 billion people.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis
Yes it does. Frigging carbon dioxide comes from your breathing. Of course it's not remotely as much as that of a small-size fire, but you get what I mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
And where does the carbon dioxide come from, Kromoh?Quote:
Yes it does. Frigging carbon dioxide comes from your breathing. Of course it's not remotely as much as that of a small-size fire, but you get what I mean.
The mystical carbon vortices in our stomachs?
From your mitochondria. You are even serious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Indeed, science has confirmed that mitochondria pull thousands of carbon dioxide molecules out of miniature top hats every second.
Except they don't; the carbon dioxide actually comes from..?
Food you eat? Reduced carbon compounds which your body oxidates in order to process an endergonic reaction?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Good good. And the carbon in the food you eat comes from..?