Are We Killing The Planet One Google Search At A Time?

Welcome to political hysteria.

I know that most people are well meaning, but this is an example of promoting what amounts to junk science for political gain.

Frankly, we really haven't a clue as to what is happening and why to the planet as far as global warming (or more obviously by observation, global cooling), but the explanation as well as the cure is always the same; surrender more liberties, power, and your personal income to government now and we will/you be just fine.

What's the impact of driving down to the library, or to the mall to buy a freshly tree-shaved book?

Yes, Virginia - every action has a consequence. The beauty of the internet is that now even stupid ideas can travel around the globe in microseconds.

ATTTENTION PEOPLE OF PLANET EARTH:

Please pay close attention. I now have the means to destroy your world. Ironically it was your own invention that gave me this awsome power. Unless my demands are immediately met, I will begin my fearsome campaign of nonstop clicking!

At the foot of the linked article:

Update: Google has responded to The Times article, stating that a single search is actually equivalent to a mere 0.2 grams of CO2. The blog post also details some of Google's efforts to further green technology as well as the energy efficiency of its own data centers.

So yes, the Times of London story is really incredibly super rediculous.

And the Times of London generated how much CO2 researching and printing this on thousands of papers that won't even be fully read?

Priceless

ATTENTION PEOPLE OF PLANET EARTH

Google's foolish attempts to thwart my plan by diminishing by 35 times the effectiveness of my clicks can not go unpunished! Owing to this non-compliance I have started my attack.

In just 45 days the small bush (the one without the berries - not the bigger small bush beside it) on the northern corner of Matilda and S. Odon St. in Elnora Kentucky will be rendered absolutely carbon-neutral.

In 46 days I will speak to you again about my demands.

I'm sorry, but you have brought this upon yourselves.

Junk science yes, but the door also swings both ways. Now we can get the worst offenders of all, spammers, on "crimes against humanity".

Hooray for statistics and leading results, which with a little effort can be used by anyone to prove anything.

My deepest apoligies, Guru. A little (obviously too little) blearly-eyed Monday levity for a story based on foolishness. Shan't happen again.

I wonder if they used Google to find the picture and some of the stats they used...

This link describes a problem much worse than the carbon footprint of a Google search.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/12/google_kettle_green_it_cobblers

A "star" MIT graduate now at Harvard... 'Nuff said.

Priceless. And AnydrousBob was right - the New York Times can beat the pants off of them for ridiculousness! Wot's their motto? "All the news that fits we print"?

I believe that "posits" in this context means "guesses". Obviously the Times had an empty corner to fill - but it would appear for once the reporting was accurate (albeit probably not the "Star physicist" guess - perhaps the people who confused volatility, risk, and correlation in the "caustic loans" consolidation came from the same courses?)