http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/sci....internet.CO2/
There is nothing left for you to do at this moment but turn off your computer.
Printable View
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/sci....internet.CO2/
There is nothing left for you to do at this moment but turn off your computer.
We should be attributing global warming impact to things that actually produce the gas IMO.
Guess I'm clean, all my power is hydro-electric. The rest of you... shame on you :P.
But yeah, it's the production of electricity and manufacturing of a product that can release greenhouse gases. By this article's logic, drinking a cup of coffee or playing the guitar contributes to global warming.
Only if you do it first. I promise I'll turn mine off afterwards.Quote:
There is nothing left for you to do at this moment but turn off your computer.
My power is hydro too. In a couple of months, all my power will be solar and carbon-neutral corn.
I would say that for the most part, the responsibility for this falls on the owners of the servers that host websites, since that is where the bulk of the power consumption associated with internet activity takes place.
But I'm not going to. I don't think that excuse is going to win you any points with environmentalists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Invader
I'm sorry, environment.
But my internet is more important.
I'm not sure what this thread is supposed to be doing other than stating the utterly bloody obvious..?
If it is, then isn't that what your post is doing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
No my post was asking a question. :l
This is in ED so I'm guessing by the ostensible blandness it has some kind of ironic subtext but I didn't really get it.
Is it that environmentalists are being hypocritical by talking on internet forums or something?
You made a statement concerning utter obviousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.c...rize_downs.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Everybody is hypocritical, in one way or another.
No offense, but I find it a little petty, if you really wanted to make that point.
Does it make you feel better, if you know that even an environmentalist is
hurting the environment, albeit less? I think it's just a pretty weak argument,
since by that logic you can just start telling people to 'kill themselves', whenever
someone wants to improve their way of life or wants to inform the general
public about important issues.
Edit:
Also, not every environmentalist is a preaching zealot.
Yea you can't blame everything that runs on power. Have to go to the source of the problem. We could just all switch to nuclear power, and then we would be free to use computers as much as we want.
Lighten up. The fact that people post on the internet to bitch about global warming is hilarious. It's not as funny as Al Gore taking a private jet to a global warming conference or Barbara Streisand flying to a city and making a statement by not riding in a car while she is there, but it is still really funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by dajo
Alright, sorry about that. :)
Didn't mean to come off as an ass.
It is a little ironic, you are right about that.
And I don't think very highly of Al Gore and all those
'green' people, who take a plane to the grocery store.
What percentage of worldwide fossil fuel consumption do you seriously think is consumed due to enviornmentalists on discussion boards?Quote:
You win the prize. My ability to imply that you are retarded shows that I am extremely intelligent and capable of deep discussion.
Is there any reason to draw attention to it other than spite?
The internet is by leagues the most effective way to disseminate information throughout the world, so seeing as these people are trying to change the whole energy habits of industrialised society it's patently justified.
Out of interest, how much national power consumption is actually used by the internet?
Needless to say the internet isn't even inherently environmentally harmful, it just depends on who provides the energy to power the servers, which are largely in America and are hence largely powered by unsustainable means. Ironically if the protesters were listened to the internet wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
You apparently didn't read the article, and you often remind me of this guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
http://www.losalamoshistory.org/Suitcase/mpmus.jpg
Have a beer or something.
Cool beans. You usually act like you have a sense of humor. But Xei on the other hand...Quote:
Originally Posted by dajo
Nah I skimmed it. Turns out they do have percentages there which is cool.
Everything I said in my post is unchanged. Thanks for the continuing flow of funny pictures though.
The guy at the end of the article makes a good point: the internet has simply replaced other means of spreading information. Doing it via television or sending leaflets or driving round the country is actually much worse for the environment.
It's done that way too, which adds to the comedy. Skywriting would be the funniest way, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
So how on Earth do you suggest people with concerns for the environment could ever communicate their concerns to the general public?
They're just going to have to do it in person to avoid being laughed at. Well, actually, they'll be laughed at any way. Keep in mind that I think man made global warming is a crock of shit. From my perspective, the article I posted just takes global warming alarmist reasoning and points out the natural conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Tire fire writing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
El Duce tells you to listen to what I say do not question me!
LOL...
my internet is not making the earth warm, it is however making my room warmer.
Even if I was a hippie living in a house of mud, growing my own food, pooping in a hole, bathing in a river - I still want internet
It is in my opinion the most important and most valuable technology we have. It's not the end of the world if we don't have cars. Walk. Ride a bike. It's would only be the end of big industry. It's not the end of the world if even the big pharmaceutical industry fall apart. Science is showing us that medicines are actually killing people. And that a healthy balanced diet is and always will be the best medicine.
But without the internet? Were ignorant of the world. Were ignorant of each other. Were ignorant that there are alternatives to life. The internet has offered us the greatest chance of world peace by helping us realize we are one global community. And by spreading information freely.
And the spreading of information is needed so that people can learn the alternatives to life
The unsustainable sources of energy (like coal plants) should be to blame, not regular people. We should be actively finding better, alternative sources of energy for many, many reasons, one of them especially being the environment. The internet is just one of the things we use daily that require energy from unsustainable resources we've been clinging on to, and is rather irrelevant to the real underlying problem.
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..?
That isn't over population. Six billion people on Earth is just six billion people on Earth. At what point do you start saying it is overpopulation? At the point the Earth's resources can't naturally replenish to sustain the population size. In return, you have starvation etc..Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Are we at the point that the Earth's resources can't naturally replenish to sustain the population size? Yes and no. The problem is inefficiency. Inefficiency works as a multiplier effect, which it is artificially created. Not only is it artificially created, but it is preventable.
Lets see, how can I illustrate what I'm saying? Look at globalization with a microscope. All the countries unified as one entity, isolated on a rock in space. Now, take this thought and apply it to one country. Look at the country as a unification of states as one entity, isolated from the rest of the world. Lets say that one country is all that is on the world. Can that country self sustain itself? Yes it can, but it isn't. The effects of negligence etc. would be comparable to what happens on a global scale of what you call over population. The country can't self sustain itself because of inefficiency. On a greater scale, there is not one country in the world that can self sustain itself because none are self sufficient. Does overpopulation cause this? No.
If overpopulation were genuinely real, then the Earth will purge us to normalize. It seems many think that is already happening because of starvation in Africa etc.. But like I said before, that is artificially created.
You see, overpopulation is an illusion and inefficiency is a control mechanism.
Just a different perspective.
Ultimately plants, yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
And the plants get it from?
Atmosphere.
That doesn't change the point you know. Plants have a reservation of carbon in them. The amount of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere is controlled by a very delicate balance, and there is a maximum speed plants can absorb carbon dioxide at. If there are more animals producing it than plants can absorb, you have increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Your breathing does contribute for global warming. If plants are capable of neutralizing it or not is a whole new deal.
Or do you think burning wood doesn't count?
Plants neutralising it? Animals producing more than plants absorb??
Have you ever studied the carbon cycle? How is even possible that animals could 'produce more than plants absorb'? Where would it come from? Very quickly everything would die.
It's really very simple: the plants make carbon dioxide gas into sugars, we eat the sugars, and make the sugars back into carbon dioxide gas.
We're a temporary CO2 sink if anything. If we didn't eat the plants they would die and decompose and the CO2 would be released anyway.
Plants are a reservatory of carbon, you genius. To consume them is to use the reservatory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Seriously, I studied the carbon cycle a hell lot already.
Also, plants also make sugars into proteins and lipids, and we make proteins and lipids into energy and carbon dioxide.
And nah, the plants wouldn't die and release the CO2. Or we wouldn't use wood for furniture.
The carbon cycle is not as simplistic as you make it seem.
Um yes fellow genius I know there is a store of carbon in plants, but if animals produced more CO2 than plants absorbed for a period of time then this reserve would quickly run out, wouldn't it?Quote:
Plants are a reservatory of carbon, you genius. To consume them is to use the reservatory.
So all of the CO2 from dead organisms goes... where?Quote:
And nah, the plants wouldn't die and release the CO2. Or we wouldn't use wood for furniture.
Apparently you've never heard of saprotrophs.
The only way breathing contributes to global warming is that it keeps us alive to cause it.
edit:
btw,
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/emissions.html#q7
I guess forum genius Kromoh should notify NASA of their error... he does know a hell lot about the carbon cycle after all, and the important role which the existence of furniture plays in it.
I notified them on his behalf. Why do you think they are outsourced to private interests? I hear the next space craft design is going to look like a rocking chair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I laughed :lol:
By this articles logic, every second you have with your electricity turned on is contributing to global warming. Even sitting around in the dark contributes to global warming because you haven't switched power companies yet...Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
But seriously, that article was kind of redundant. We already know that using power contributes to global warming, why point out the small things?
Definitely move to SB
Farting causes global warming.
I posted it because not everybody connects all dots. Internet forums are cesspools for global warming alarmists, and the irony in that is a laugh riot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraftwerk
You know, global warming is about how much carbon there is on the atmosphere (aka, one of the parts of the carbon cycle), not on the carbon cycle as a whole. Of course, one influences the other, but let's not make the mistake of assuming one is the other.
Breathing contributes to global warming, photosynthesis contributes to global cooling. If they balance each other out in the end is a different thing. It's like two forces and a resultant in kinematics.
Magazines and newspapers only show the opinions of stupid writers and pseudoscientists, people who never had real contact with science.
Breathing doesn't contribute to global warming. To say that breathing contributes to global warming is to say that breathing is the problem. But breathing isn't the problem. Chopping down forests is.
If we don't chop down forests and jungles and keep the ocean reefs alive, there is enough plant life to keep the carbon dioxide exchange between animals (including humans) and plants STABLE. And seeing as how these forests and reefs were already here, making all of our breathing balanced, BREATHING IS NOT THE PROBLEM.
The problem has to do with how we alter the environment, not our bodies. Our bodies are not a problem. Do you understand the subtle difference? When something contribues to global warming it is out of balance. Breathing isn't out of balance. Chopping down forests is.
Breathing does contribute to global warming. If the effect of breathing is neutralized by photosynthesis is another thing. Suppose there wasn't photosynthesis, and we all got food from a hypothetical magical source. Our breathing would contribute to global warming. Get the point?Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
There are two ways to solve the problem: reduce carbon dioxide emissions or increase carbon dioxide absorption. Both work.
I'm not arguing from a philosophical/reflective point of view like you are (and I agree with you in that matter). I'm arguing fro ma practical point of view. Breathing contributes to global warming -- it's a simple fact. Now, whether we should fight global warming by breathing less or by putting an end to polluting industries... that is what my initial argument was all about.
I've been wondering lately if we had a set time once a day where everyone holds their breath for about 10-20 seconds. Do you think this would slow or stop global warming? hehe I think it's an interesting option, imagine how much c02 we are breathing out all the time, all 6.5 billion of us.
Your kids and your modern fairy tales.Quote:
global warming.
You elderlies and your hard-headedness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loaf
You kids and your scams to get money off idiotic environment loving hippies who live in pure ignorance and root through garbage. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
What.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Just give it up Kromoh. The whole point is there isn't a magical source. By that logic eating food contributes to my morbid obesity. Except I don't have morbid obesity, because, due to a magical process, that food leaves my body.Quote:
Breathing does contribute to global warming. If the effect of breathing is neutralized by photosynthesis is another thing. Suppose there wasn't photosynthesis, and we all got food from a hypothetical magical source. Our breathing would contribute to global warming. Get the point?
No tommo as we've just been discussing it makes no difference at all, because CO2 is constantly cycling out of the bodies of living things, into the atmosphere, and back into the bodies of living things. Breathing is simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere. If we didn't eat the food something else would.Quote:
I've been wondering lately if we had a set time once a day where everyone holds their breath for about 10-20 seconds. Do you think this would slow or stop global warming? hehe I think it's an interesting option, imagine how much c02 we are breathing out all the time, all 6.5 billion of us.
Eating contributes to obesity, yes. Exercise prevents it. The result (aka, if you will be obese or not) depends on the final balance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Doesn't mean that something else doesn't contribute to global warming.Quote:
If we didn't eat the food something else would.
Is war carbon neutral? :lol:
Um. What?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
The point is, it wouldn't be cycling out of all of our bodies for however long we held our breath. Which would stop a lot of c02 from being released.
Except it wouldn't.
I wonder how many more people would support an invasion of Iran if they learned that it would substantially reduce global warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis
Nah, it would.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Get a clue Kromoh. You actually think the ratio of 10 seconds to 24 hours (0.0116%) multiplied by the ratio of respiration of humans to the ratio of every other respiring organism on the planet (considering we constitute about 0.005% of the Earth's biomass) is a big number?
Also I think you'll find the ongoing respiration of the human body actually requires you to breathe? It doesn't do it for the bloody sake of it. You think that CO2 is just going to build up in your body? How have you got into a decent medical school if you're ignorant of oxygen debt?
Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Just because it's insignificant doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I agree with you it's insignificant. I disagree with you it doesn't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
The insignificance of it is exactly my initial argument: carbon dioxide produced from internet usage is insignificant comparing to other sources.
Stop trying to sound like you know more than me about ventilation and respiration. I've already finished my biochemistry course. Stop trying to take away from the fact I'm in med school, studying what we are arguing right now, and you aren't.
Also, if you really close your respiratory channels (aka mouth and nose), no CO2 will come out of you. Or perhaps you might also want to kill yourself and have your body frozen, to avoid carbon dioxide emissions. Take out your water and bone, and all you have is compounds that, decomposed, will generate carbon dioxide and ammonium, both greenhouse effect gasses.
Also, I wonder if you know that the main reason why you breathe in non-stress conditions is to keep your blood pH stable...
Thanks Kromoh. I was actually looking for an intelligent answer to my question. So thanks.
No, you were looking for somebody who said you were right. I gave you a perfectly coherent answer.
Except the statement I was responding to in the first place was 'it would stop a lot of CO2 being released'.Quote:
Just because it's insignificant doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I agree with you it's insignificant. I disagree with you it doesn't happen.
Stop appealing to med school and actually address what I said. :lQuote:
Stop trying to sound like you know more than me about ventilation and respiration. I've already finished my biochemistry course. Stop trying to take away from the fact I'm in med school, studying what we are arguing right now, and you aren't.
I didn't know that, but then again I don't think it's really true. There is no 'main reason'; there are various reasons which are 100% crucial to survival. For example, providing oxygen to your brain (which still uses just as much energy in 'non-stress conditions') for respiration which you would die without; also, I wonder if you know that around half of the energy used by the human body is not used for locomotion but rather active transport out of cells to maintain homeostasis, which again happens during non-stress and again we would die without. Keeping blood pH steady is of course also a vital function of breathing but saying it is 'more vital' than the others is meaningless.Quote:
Also, I wonder if you know that the main reason why you breathe in non-stress conditions is to keep your blood pH stable...
But let's say for sake of argument that pH was the main reason to illustrate my point. If we held our breath for a while, our blood pH would start to fall due to the excess of carboxylic acid which couldn't be removed via breathing. Then, once we started breathing again, our lungs would have to work extra hard to remove the extra CO2, and we would end up breathing out just as much in the first place.
Holding your breath doesn't inhibit your body's metabolism for goodness sakes. Exactly the same amount of CO2 will be produced regardless and will have to be expelled in the breath at some time or other.
Coherent, yes. Intelligent....Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
No.Quote:
Except it wouldn't.
This is what I was looking for also. But if you held your breath and then continued breathing normally, you wouldn't expel any more c02 right? You would only expel extra if you started breathing really quickly afterward I would assume.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
But Kromoh's response ofQuote:
Coherent, yes. Intelligent.... No.
"Nah, it would."
was intelligent?
To be honest I was joking around and probably being a bit of a jerk when I responded the second time but I did think I had properly explained the big picture to you the first time; anyway, I did elaborate properly in the post afterwards.
Nah, because the CO2 concentration in each breath would be higher. ;)Quote:
This is what I was looking for also. But if you held your breath and then continued breathing normally, you wouldn't expel any more c02 right? You would only expel extra if you started breathing really quickly afterward I would assume.
It's a letter O in CO2 btw, not the number 0; it means the molecule consists of a carbon atom joined to two oxygen atoms.
Ok fair enough. So the body compnesates by expelling more CO2 and taking in more O2, even if you don't breathe any more deeply or faster after holding your breath?
Yeah I know, I just CBF thinking about it, it looks pretty much the same anyway lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Do you know how much oxygen there is in the air you breathe in? 20%. Do you know how much oxygen there is in the air you breathe out? 19%. It's the reason why the kiss of life works. The sensation of asphyxiation is actually triggered by your blood becoming more acid.
Lul and yes I know how the body uses energy. You'd be surprised by how much of that non-stress energy is used for reasons other than active transport. It only shows that you know little about it. You'd be surprised by how much ATP or GTP is used just to grow and keep the cytoskeleton. How much ATP is used to activate proteins. How much ATP is used in cell transport and muscular contraction.
Yes, holding your breath doesn't inhibit your body's carbon emission (not in the long term), but it does reduce your metabolism, especially if you pass out ;)
You can always kill yourself to cut your carbon emission. Yes, bacteria will continue to emit what you didn't, but then no-one can say it's your fault.
Once again, my initial argument was about the significance of carbon emissions, not their veracity.
You're the one who attacked me and my uni lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I'm not sure how you do things in Brazil but over here it's more like 21% and 16%.Quote:
Do you know how much oxygen there is in the air you breathe in? 20%. Do you know how much oxygen there is in the air you breathe out? 19%. It's the reason why the kiss of life works.
So you're only off by about 500%.
I don't even know why you're talking about this but at least try to get it right.
Right, stating a fact about it means I am ignorant of all other facts about it. wtf are you even talking about now. What did I say that was wrong? Nothing. What did I say which even showed ignorance? Nothing. Stop being so ridiculous.Quote:
You'd be surprised by how much of that non-stress energy is used for reasons other than active transport. It only shows that you know little about it.
Okay this is beyond ridiculous now, firstly as we both know tommo wasn't suggesting restricting your breathing until you pass out or flat out kill yourself, can you please just acknowledge you were wrong instead of trying to change the argument into something it patently wasn't, and secondly nobody was discussing whether we should file a lawsuit against bacteria either, it was about if there is an effect or not. These constant attempts at conflating things away are just bloody tiring, nobody falls for them.Quote:
Yes, holding your breath doesn't inhibit your body's carbon emission (not in the long term), but it does reduce your metabolism, especially if you pass out
You can always kill yourself to cut your carbon emission. Yes, bacteria will continue to emit what you didn't, but then no-one can say it's your fault.
I never even disagreed with your initial argument, we haven't ever been talking about your 'initial argument', I just pointed out that whilst it might be a striking metaphor breathing actually doesn't actually cause global warming, without realising you'd have an issue with that.Quote:
Once again, my initial argument was about the significance of carbon emissions, not their veracity.
I forget which uni you're at but I don't think calling it a 'decent medical school' can seriously be called an 'attack' Kromoh.Quote:
You're the one who attacked me and my uni lol
<insert 'when hell freezes over' joke here>Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
A shit ton, but you won't see them volunteering to enlist to prevent global warming. :cheeky:Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
The funny/sad thing is, the Government could actually convince people that it would work.