AGW Today: Believers Must Stop Using The Interwebz

It’s confirmed: the Internet is bad for global warming, er, climate change, or whateverthehell they are calling it nowadays. Revealed: the environmental impact of Google searches

Performing two Google searches from a desktop computer can generate about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle for a cup of tea, according to new research.

While millions of people tap into Google without considering the environment, a typical search generates about 7g of CO2 Boiling a kettle generates about 15g. “Google operates huge data centres around the world that consume a great deal of power,” said Alex Wissner-Gross, a Harvard University physicist whose research on the environmental impact of computing is due out soon. “A Google search has a definite environmental impact.”

Google is secretive about its energy consumption and carbon footprint. It also refuses to divulge the locations of its data centres. However, with more than 200m internet searches estimated globally daily, the electricity consumption and greenhouse gas emissions caused by computers and the internet is provoking concern. A recent report by Gartner, the industry analysts, said the global IT industry generated as much greenhouse gas as the world’s airlines – about 2% of global CO2 emissions. “Data centres are among the most energy-intensive facilities imaginable,” said Evan Mills, a scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. Banks of servers storing billions of web pages require power.

I guess they are calling AGW the “environmental impact” now. Kinda like how they call the lifestyle the 15 people who actually live the life they think everyone else should in order to be “carbon neutral” “going green.” Strange, since plants, plankton, and basically “the environment” needs CO2 to sustain life.

So, I guess it is time for all the Believers to walk the talk and give up their Internet connections. Yeah, that’ll happen! Most of them believe that it is the other guy, or the government, or Big (insert industry here) that should “do something.” I applaud the 15 Believers (double Randi Rhodes’ listener-ship) who actually live the life.

The funniest part of the story is that the majority of people who will read it will read it on the Interwebz. But no one is missing the subtext, which is that people should BUY carbon credits to offset their ‘Net usage. That’ll come later.

Oh, and I did about 15 Google searches this morning. On purpose. For no reason.

Jules Crittenden: There’s an Al Gore exception, because he can’t save the world without checking his email while jetting from his sprawling mansion to his uberboat. But the rest of you, off now. For Gaia.

Fausta: Guilt is a powerful emotion and propagandists never hesitate to use it, even when they risk being silly. (Sea kittens is also mentioned)

Jammie Wearing Fool: Just for fun I allowed this blog post to simmer for about 20 minutes, hoping to generate even more CO2.

Patterico: So which will it be, my internet friends? If you’re still worried about the environment, maybe it’s time for you to log off.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

11 Responses to “AGW Today: Believers Must Stop Using The Interwebz”

  1. Reasic says:

    I guess they are calling AGW the “environmental impact” now. Kinda like how they call the lifestyle the 15 people who actually live the life they think everyone else should in order to be “carbon neutral” “going green.” Strange, since plants, plankton, and basically “the environment” needs CO2 to sustain life.

    Teach, this post has made it crystal clear to me that you have most certainly NOT “considered all the evidence”, and have instead taken your positions based purely on ideology. Yes, plants need CO2, but the CO2 they need is provided by our planet in a natural carbon cycle. The concern about global warming revolves around the EXCESS CO2, supplied by human industrial activity, which has thrown the planet’s equilibrium out of balance, resulting in a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    So, I guess it is time for all the Believers to walk the talk and give up their Internet connections. Yeah, that’ll happen! Most of them believe that it is the other guy, or the government, or Big (insert industry here) that should “do something.”

    I just love how you continue to make this ridiculous argument that those who actually DO consider ALL the evidence should suddenly live Medieval lifestyles, or else they must be lying, as if it doesn’t completely miss the point. No one is calling for a stop to any and all activities that result in CO2 emissions. The goal is to bring emissions back down to reasonable levels. This can be done through more fuel efficient cars, better household energy management, and a switch to renewable energy sources wherever possible, among other things. It doesn’t mean that everyone must stop heating their homes, driving to work, watching tv, etc. I’m sure you’d love for us to stay off the internet and quit bothering you with our pesky facts, but this whole schtick you push about the supposed AGW hypocrisy is ludicrous, and I think any level-headed person could see right through it as well.

    By the way, you still have yet to explain how the Sun could be a major factor in global warming if the stratosphere is cooling, or how water vapor is if its atmospheric lifetime is about a week (compared to over 100 years for CO2). Two simple questions. No answers yet. Only this hypocrisy red herring and other unsubstantiated bull.I’d gladly consider your answer to my questions, if only you’d provide something, anything. Of course, if you’ve arrived at your position based on ideology, and really haven’t a clue about climate science, then maybe you’d have a difficult time answering a very simple scientific question. That’s my impression, anyway, if you don’t respond.

  2. […] William Teach has the latest cause of Gorebal “Warming” – the Internet. I’ll continue to do my part to try to prevent subzero temperatures by continuing to put up rambling rant…er, high-quality posts, but they’re due in the land of ice cream and frozen beer by Wednesday anyway. […]

  3. Hey, it’s you climahysterics who are coming out with all this crazy stuff. Don’t blame the messenger. Besides, are you going to give up the Internet? It apparently contributes to AGW. Live the life, rather then just yammering about it.

  4. Reasic says:

    Besides, are you going to give up the Internet? It apparently contributes to AGW. Live the life, rather then just yammering about it.

    Did you even read my full response? I tried to explain to you that no one is called for a stop to all activities that produce CO2. That’s not even the point of the article you quoted. No, I am not going to “give up the internet”, but neither am I asking you to, so I guess that’s not hypocrisy then, is it?

    Still no answer to the pesky scientific facts that stand in the way of your ideologically motivated arguments that the Sun and water vapor are important drivers of climate change. The fact is that they are not, and I have proven it. Your continued refusal to either refute or acknowledge these facts further damages your credibility on this topic. Please, please, prove that you know the slightest bit about that which you are talking by discussing climate science with me. I’ve not tried to confuse you with big scientific terms or jargon like “detection and attribution”, “black body radiation”, or “solar irradiance”. I’ve only asked for simple responses to basic scientific facts.

  5. Silke says:

    Teach, this is “straw-man” argument. No reasonable person who accepts the evidence for AGW is asking anyone to stop producing CO2 completely.

    Can you please tell us what your source for information on global warming is?

  6. Reasic, none of the AGW Believers are calling for themselves to give up anything. What they want is other people to either give it up or pay for carbon offsets, as well as for government to “do something.” Quite frankly, one of the things that started me down the road from being an AGW believer to a “skeptic” was that none of the leaders were doing anything other then telling other people what to do, while living the exact life they said was bad for the climate. If they didn’t believe in it enough to change their lifestyle, it made me wonder what the actual point was. Answer? Money, power, prestige.

    They aren’t asking people to give up anything, Silke, because the leaders themselves almost never do. They want people to buy carbon offsets, which puts money in their pockets. They want to give speeches and write books, make appearances, which puts money in their pockets, gets people to listen to them, and gives them power. I’ll listen to someone like Ed Begly, Jr, who does live the life, though, with him, it is more about the environment then climate change. Most of the rest are simply hypocrites.

    And very few of you do more then taking token measures, like changing a lightbulb, for your beliefs. Y’all talk a good game, but, never take the field.

    As far as more sources, they are all over. I do not rely primarily on the UNIPCC reports, written by bureaucrats, like you do. I have been following this discussion since the early 1990’s.

  7. Silke says:

    Teach said: As far as more sources, they are all over.

    I’m just asking you to cite one source…just one. The fact that you can’t or won’t makes me wonder whether you have an informed opinion on this subject.

    I do not rely primarily on the UNIPCC reports, written by bureaucrats,

    No, the authors of the IPCC assessment reports (not just the Summary for Policy Makers – which is what I think you are confusing it with) are scientists from all over the world who are recognized experts in their field. The assessments are based on peer-reviewed scientific and technical literature.

    But again, I’m willing to look at any research you consider compelling. What specific scientific literature has convinced you that all these people are wrong?

  8. Reasic says:

    They aren’t asking people to give up anything, Silke, because the leaders themselves almost never do. They want people to buy carbon offsets, which puts money in their pockets. They want to give speeches and write books, make appearances, which puts money in their pockets, gets people to listen to them, and gives them power.

    Who, specifically, are you talking about here? And how exactly are these people benefiting financially from this? Quit talking in generalities. I need specifics, so I can judge the veracity of your claims.

  9. Reasic says:

    Once again, no answers, just mindless babble. Teach, if you want anyone to take you seriously, you’ll HAVE to start answering questions. No one’s trying to overwhelm you or confuse you. We simply think you’re wrong, and are asking for an answer.

  10. Seriously, you’re asking how people are benefiting from this? Consider all the people who get to jet off to climate change conferences around the world. Consider Al Gore, who makes millions off of being Mr. Climate Change. He gets recognition and accolades. A Nobel. And gets to jet all over the world, drive big cars, uses more electricity then the average family, and has a big non-CO2 friendly boat. And, guess what? A company that sells carbon offsets to other companies, where he sits on the board, pays him partly in carbon offsets.

    I’m sorry you do not like my answers, but, then, I don’t like yours, but, you don’t see me complaining. It is a different mindset. Mine has been freed from the indoctrination that Mankind is the primary or sole cause of global warming, despite billions of years of history of it being a natural process. Yours hasn’t. Yet you, like most of the others I read about and converse with, rarely take any action at all, if any, to reduce your CO2 output. It is always for someone else to take action. What are you actually doing, Reasic? Anything? What kind of car do you drive? Silke has already stated she can’t afford to give up her big car, yet, big cars are one of the supposed main offenders in climate change doctrine. Go to a climate change rally some time, and tell me how many SUVs you see there, as well as other poor mileage cars (for the record, I am all for increasing CAFE standards. I think it is ridiculous that cars today actually get worse mileage then ones from the late 80’s early 90’s). But, are you yourself doing anything other then “bringing awareness,” Reasic? That is the big question. If someone believes in something so strongly, you would think they would take action, not just yammer on about it.

    Silke, as far as sources go, give me a break. I have been posting stuff for years, stuff which you do not like. I have been reading books. I talk to climatologists and meteorologists. I can’t list every Star Wars book I ever read, either (though I have read most of them,) nor every movie I ever read. There is no one book or source. I also read the stuff that takes a view that Man is at fault. Deal with it. Because the argument, despite what you think, is not one of science, but, to repeat, one of politics and control.

  11. Silke says:

    Teach, I’m perfectly willing to concede I could be mistaken about AGW. You seem so certain about your position and if you’re as well informed as you say you are it shouldn’t be that difficult to make your case.

    Also, you keep conflating two separate arguments – whether global warming is caused by man and if so what we should do about it. Human behavior has no bearing on the validity of the scientific case for or against AGW. That you can’t seem to differentiate the two and the fact that you keep repeating demonstrably false information seriously damages your credibility on this subject.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7004 access attempts in the last 7 days.