Comments on: Your Google search is killing Earth

By: Alexander

Alexander — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:31:32 +0000

I’m going to do thousands of google searches a day now because I laugh at all you people who believe CO2 is toxic.
We breathe it out, idiot.

By: gin

gin — Wed, 13 May 2009 13:34:25 +0000

why do yall talk bout blobal warming nerds!!!!

By: backbeat

backbeat — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 08:16:41 +0000

Figures! The above 2 muckraking, trolling bloggers are firing blanks. One [premature] shot and they’re done.

By: backbeat

backbeat — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:30:21 +0000

^In the face of your depraved indifference, your grasping at straws is duly noted.

By: Agent Smith

Agent Smith — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 05:10:36 +0000

I love greentards, fighting for invisible issues to give reason to their otherwise meaningless lives, probably as a result of the loss of religion as a primary focus, but let theologists give the analysis there.

You don’t have to create fake goals just to somehow better some invisible problem, but this
“green” crap is a classic example.

It seems more logical to attack primary carbon-emitting objects such as vehicles, airplanes, cars, et. al. rather than trying to carve out a niche in some small area that SHOULD CONTINUE TO EXIST in its current form (and grow!) to help further our technological evolution which is sadly way behind what it should be at right now.

The bottom line is some greentard decided to do this study because it is the only way one can get attention in today’s media. Carve out a niche someone hasn’t attacked yet and lock your claws in.

Seriously, if you’re that worried about your google searches destroying the planet, skip tea for a week and query away!

By: bluHatter

bluHatter — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 05:00:59 +0000

“Idiot. ”

ad hominem. Will no longer feed the troll.

By: backbeat

backbeat — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:39:11 +0000

Why do cowards always do their damnedest to redirect the argument away from their own statements … when they’re held accountable? There is no ad hominem “attack” where one does not exist.

Don’t like the taste of your own words? [“The only way searching less would affect emissions would be if everybody did so at the same time”] Don’t employ them. Quite easy, no?

The intellectual capacity of a small child was the comparison, not a small child’s intellect. As the self-annointed neurolinguist, your forthcoming struggle to equate the 2 phrases will be duly ignored.

Idiot.

By: bluHatter

bluHatter — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:01:13 +0000

Ad hominem attacks are no way to win an argument.

“methods are either productive or counterproductive where having a low carbon footprint is concerned.”

Exactly. And this article is COUNTER productive. So is this conversation. Because the emphasis is on consumer behavior rather than corporate resource management. My point, for the third time: you’ll never stop people from searching for information. The only way to lower emissions in this regard would be to create more efficient servers.

I DO happen to understand server load. Probably better than most people. It’s why I don’t buy into these myths that somehow running a server to service millions or billions of searches per day is any less efficient than servicing those requests for knowledge in some other way. One example I gave in farce was actually _driving_ to a library.

If Google were to vanish, demand for information would be only partially be reduced because of convenience. But a vast majority of people would still need to find information one way or another. I still haven’t seen any suggestions for alternatives.

Hopefully you can respond to my argument now, rather than comparing me to a “small child” – as if children are stupid or something. But that’s an argument for another day.

By: backbeat

backbeat — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:23:01 +0000

^When you state something like “The only way searching less would affect emissions would be if everybody did so at the same time” shows that you have no idea what demand there is on their servers. Do you _really_ believe that their servers are not running and constantly being taxed 24/7?

No one is claiming that Google alone is causing the end of the Earth. The point, so easily understood small children get it, is that methods are either productive or counterproductive where having a low carbon footprint is concerned.

By: bluHatter

bluHatter — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:10:43 +0000

The servers run whether you use them or not. It’s not like when you click “search”, a puff of CO2 magically appears in the atmosphere. The only way searching less would affect emissions would be if everybody did so at the same time. Google would then see that some of its servers are no longer needed and eliminate a few to cut costs (if people act rationally, which they don’t). I *get* the point, but there’s no constructive way to displace the demand. The demand for knowledge is THERE, and it won’t go away any time soon. If you’re going to declare that Google is killing the earth, what option would you prefer that would actually cost the earth LESS? Is there any “cleaner” way to gather information? The article offers no insight.

[comment emissions: .7g CO2]

By: backbeat

backbeat — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:37:12 +0000

^Starting with yours?

Problem is the _volume_, not your example of ‘just click’. Further side-swiping the issue isn’t productive either.

By: bluHatter

bluHatter — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 03:19:41 +0000

Wow, way to pick at the fringe while ignoring the actual problems. Did it ever occur to you that, sans Internet, people would have to actually drive to a library to obtain the knowledge one gains from a simple google search? I bet the “emmissions” from a round trip in an F350 is a whole heck of a lot more toxic than your average click. Don’t just throw numbers at something to make people question reality when you haven’t thought things through yourself.

By the way, CO2 is the only thing keeping plant life alive. Eliminate all CO2, eliminate all life.

By: Galvatron

Galvatron — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:39:18 +0000

agreen an the scintist is poiticly an economicly motivatedmust be a slow news day

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:05:49 +0000

Btw I’m all for recycling and all but this is just rediculous.

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:03:54 +0000

What is the point of this article? To tell everyone to stop using google because they are killing the Earth?

It’s kind of like how they say that everything causes cancer, seems like nowadays everything is killing mother Earth.

Whoever wrote this article should just stop breathing because their existence on this planet is killing it.

By: backbeat

backbeat — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:05:13 +0000

^Did you really post that right after BG? [smacks head]

Is this what happens when you combine Fox News and homeschooling?

By: devan

devan — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:53:12 +0000

plants can’t live without co2. zero emissions is a step backward if we are talking about the environment and saving trees!

By: The Boy Genius

The Boy Genius — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:46:38 +0000

I’m not sure I understand the hoopla over Mikey’s statement…? Could he have possibly phrased this better? Absolutely. But I don’t think there’s anyone that can argue that high amounts of carbon dioxide are harmful. Can you? Let’s think about all the research that has been done on it, things like carbon dioxide forming carbonic acid in the ocean which is slowly eroding and killing the marine life and reefs (because the ocean absorbs most of our pollutants). Again, for a 101 on 1st grade science, yes, we exhale carbon dioxide. No one’s arguing that. Plus if you still don’t agree with what I said, think of the fact that Mikey is Canadian and cut him a break!

By: backbeat

backbeat — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:42:30 +0000

^As opposed to those mega-BILLION dollar industries who hide behind lobbyists and attorneys in order to irresponsibly take no action?

Pick your poison.

By: Kovacz

Kovacz — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:05:56 +0000

Ahem… The ’scientist’ in question runs a company consulting website owners re. carbon neutrality in webbing! He’s a Harvard Professor AND a Global Warming bandwagon profiteer!
He’s also got the numbers wrong – as you can see over on endgadget!

Also: what’s the alternative to the person who’s googling? Doing absolutely nothing? Hardly! It’d be sth equally or more carbonaceous…it’s a money-making scam!

By: Colm

Colm — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:55:05 +0000

Everyone who thinks “no one can argue that CO2 is an extremely toxic pollutant which is very bad for our health” should discontinue breathing now and show the rest of us how to cut our CO2 emissions to 0. CO2 is what you exhale every time you breath…dangblarnit.

By: BeLogical

BeLogical — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:20:23 +0000

My 1st comment, and my last. So sad because I loved BGR’s coverage of the Blackberry Storm. I just can’t handle the global warming alarmists anymore. Goodbye BGR RSS feed, I will miss you. (I held my breath while I typed this, so hopefully I contributed in some small way to this CO2 “problem”)

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:54:51 +0000

“no one can argue that CO2 is an extremely toxic pollutant which is very bad for our health”…

Wrong. CO2 is an essential trace gas which is vital for nearly all plant life on earth.

The rest of the argument is too tiring to correct, yet again.

I have removed BGR from my RSS feed until whoever posted and approved this trash goes and educates him/herself and proves this tech blog isn’t just another Goreacle clan with a Macbook.

By: backbeat

backbeat — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:39:46 +0000

^The one you now can’t see giving you the finger?

BuhBye.

By: ProfessionalGun

ProfessionalGun — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:29:06 +0000

Here’s the same story done PROPERLY:

http://techdirt.com/articles/20090111/2340393357.shtml

One of these blogs gets to stay in my RSS reader. Guess which.

By: ProfessionalGun

ProfessionalGun — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:08:21 +0000

While I appreciate some new knowledge on the environmental impact of popular technologies – I think it’s irresponsible journalism to put one popular company on a witch hunt without investigating the major competitors and providing a little perspective.

This posting has me questioning the intentions of BGR. And, as others have stated, you’re completely discrediting yourselves.

By: josh

josh — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:36:00 +0000

Correction – the website is, http://www.blackle.com.

Enjoy

By: josh

josh — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:30:39 +0000

This is why we should all use, “Blakl.”

Let’s start now…

By: richardh

richardh — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:27:13 +0000

Although I agree with Ross, I won’t be cutting off BGR from my feed. But it does strike me as frightening and amusing that the “climate” of global warming propaganda has transformed a naturally occurring byproduct of respiration that is essential to life on Earth into a toxic pollutant.

By: WTF

WTF — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:05:28 +0000

It amazes me that there are “scientists” who have so much free time on their hands that they sit around and do stupid ass studies like this.