http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/02 ... ring_call/

It's all hot air you know...

You see - crazy old scientists who are not a member of the Church of the Carbon Footprint are described as “boffins” because they are clearly mad. This is the language of suppression and oppression. Even El Reg follows the dictats of the shandy organisation whose tendrils are so deep in our society now, that the only thing stopping the witch burnings is (ironically) the fear of green house gasses from the event.

However, being boffins, should be listened to.

^ You're right, mostly:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sh ... 211985.ece

I'd boff her

I'm not sure 'boffins' is actually that derogatory a term. The Register, for example, describes all scientists as 'boffins' as a kind of stylistic conceit. I've heard the term used as a simple substitute for 'extremely clever people'. It may conjure up a certain stereotype to you personally but I don't necessarily think it's a generalised phenomenon.

Jon

Boffin was my nickname at school, and it was most definitely derogatory then. Maybe times have changed.

I think like many things, it depends on context.

I was sometimes taunted for being "brainy", but it's difficult to see how that's really an insult.

FWMHOIW, the whole "Global Warming" debacle frustrates me. Regardless, our primary concern should be preserving our precious reserves and developing sustainable alternatives. "Global Warming" seems to serve the same purpose as "Hell" in religion; namely it's an attempt to scare selfish greedy stupid children into doing what's right. Unfortunately, it often has the reverse effect.

As I've indicated elsewhere; conspicuous overconsumption for no better reason than vanity is a crime we see every day and it sickens me. Because their dirty little pleasures mostly harm people far away or in the future, somehow they think it's justifiable compared to harming someone here and now. If people weren't so self-centered and inconsiderate, then the "Hell" of global warming wouldn't be something we'd be found guilty of in the first place. Of course, it may well happen anyway and I'm sure we'll survive. Whats a few more dead foreigners on a planet of billions...

Do we know for certain that no more oil is being created inside the Earth?

I think there probably is material being laid down that will eventually form fossil fuels, but due to deforestation it's in relatively tiny amounts and it won't be properly "baked" for a few million years.

I'm not a geologist, but I'm sure there's plenty of expert material to be found on the subject. For now, here's an extract from Wiki:

"1 litre of regular gasoline is the time-rendered result of about 23.5 tonnes of ancient organic material deposited on the ocean floor.
The total fossil fuel used in the year 1997 is the result of 422 years of all plant matter that grew on the entire surface and in all the oceans of the ancient earth."

I think it's fair to say that waiting for new deposits is not a short term answer.

Every time I hear the term "boffins" it makes me think of "Big Talk" on the Mitchell and Webb sound.

Fossil fuel use by nessecity must be used until we can economically transfer to "sustainable" sources of power and production right now that is impossible without hurting the poor most.

Mostly what annoys me is sheer waste. Cars that are bought every 3 years instead of waiting until its lifespan ends to tiny plastic wrapping on things that don't need it

eg. box of fudge: cardboard exterior ok, plasic bag to hold 20 fudge peices wrapped in individual plastic wrapping some one is taking the piss

Driving to the [LIFTED] local shop aswell or driving to relatives that live a 10-30 min walk away oh and then spend the rest of thier lives wondering why they are overweight, the human body is meant to be used.

It does annoy me somewhat that the AGW crowd's holier than thou attitude is the greatest hippocracy when thier very policies (biofuels) have caused as much pain for humanity than global warming will do

So what about nuclear power folks? Who's into it?

Nuclear? Well, it's an option.

It also pushes the mess further into the future.

Why don't we start investing in research on how to cope with a changing climate? It would make a lot more sense than the current assumption we can do anything to stop it.

I wouldn't have a problem with Nuclear power if we could deal with the waste.

I recall years ago, in the Times a think, a diagram of a scaled down test version of a power plant that was intended to be fueled by radioactive waste from nuclear power stations. I can't recall exactly, but the premise was that further energy would be made from using the waste and in the process make the byproduct safe for disposal.

They were supposed to have planned a working scaled down version, I have no idea what happened to that.

As an alternative, well, a Norwegian scientist on Coast the other week was showing his idea of generating electricity through osmosis. It looked quite intriguing and very simple. Whether it could be suitably scaled up is another matter but we have an abundance of the basic "fuels" needed for that.

I agree with HK. The climate will change irrespective of whether humans were/are here or not, it's a floating ball of rock in space afterall. I believe we've wasted far too much time and money focusing on this Carbon nonsense and Kyoto was a waste of time, and billions of pounds, as it was only pushing the inevitable back by about 10 or 20 years. Concentrating that time and money on finding alternative fuel sources and creating environments and societies that can deal with the change would be more beneficial.

We definitely need to focus on coping with the change, but I can't see the government, the media, or consequently the public, giving up their obsession with carbon any time soon.

I just think maybe nuclear might shift the "problems" into the future, but I certainly represents a viable alternative and could make a big dent in fossil fuel usage. Not to mention that it would be easier to roll out across the BRICs and Next 11s of the world.

+1 for nuclear. It's the only realistic alternative.