Carbon cost of Googling revealed - WHAT A JOKE

[superkartracer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7823387.stm

[superkartracer]

Re-post...... sorry

[_Batty_]

superkartracer said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7823387.stm

by reading these reposts i've got enough CO2 to boil my pi$$

[aciddrop616]

For the love of god when you think that there would be anything as stupid as the last thing you heard, something comes along and makes that last statment seem like eistein came out with it. Whats next?? a collony of ants produce More Co2 than your average small dog??

jeesus

when will it stop!

[fadeaway]

superkartracer said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7823387.stm

Mmmm, self-publising US researcher says google search makes 7g of CO2. Google say it's more like 0.2g.

Now who's figures are we going to beleive ... well, which of them knows how many servers Google operate, how efficient they are, how much power Google's data centers use and exactly how much processing power the average search uses.....

... or should we go with the bloke who made some numbers and divided them a bit

Nice work by the BBC though - oh, it mentions CO2 so lets publish it as fact!

[superkartracer]

_Batty_ said:

superkartracer said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7823387.stm

by reading these reposts i've got enough CO2 to boil my pi$$

Just getting my 7g in Sir.

[lunarscope]

7g or 7 tonnes, who cares ?
I wonder if the same 'researcher' has calculated the CO2 'cost' of searching for information the 'old-fashioned' way.

[kambites]

The question is, does searching for a previous thread produce more carbon dioxide than putting up the 600th repost?

[Negative Creep]

I take it I'm not the only one who's just performed 2 spurious searches?

[Spiritual_Beggar]

The biggest thing these people need to ask thmselves is;

"Does anyone really care?"


I think not

[Buzz word]

What a useless factoid that is. What is their motivation behind the news to google less and save the carbons? I figure google is already the most streamlined process. What would be the alternative...

Get in the car go to a library and use their computer. Find a book and realise that's not got the answer. Repeat search and check functions with extra huffing and puffing wasting carbons. Get the hump so go for a coffee after 2hrs of fruitless searching as there probably is no book in the world that happens to know what film the line "webster webster and cohen. wWhat? not webster webster and cohen" is from despite it being the most niggling question you have right now. Then the carbon damage really happens as you stomp round and kill some seals and trees as you will never know the answer and are fustrated. Then you can drive home watch all your dvd collection and put on a nice brew to relax.

With all that in mind a few miliseconds seems good by anyones estimations.

[thinfourth2]

Negative Creep said:

I take it I'm not the only one who's just performed 2 spurious searches?

Well

http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=having+fun+wit...

[svm]

kambites said:

The question is, does searching for a previous thread produce more carbon dioxide than putting up the 600th repost?

I reckon you should Google that....

superkartracer said:

Re-post...... sorry