On Mar 6, 11:52*am, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message

...





Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

FFS can't people get a grip and some perspective.

WITHOUT THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS HUMANS WOULD HAVE BECOME EXTINCT TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO

You are a liar. Fossil fuels played little or no part in prehistory.

Small amounts of coal near the surface were exploited from around 200BC in
China but that is as far back as it goes. A few local surface outcrops in
the UK were drift mined from Roman times. Newcastle had industrial scale
coal before most places with active mines in the 13th century. Until the
late middle ages mostly they used wood, charcoal or animal fats for heat
and light.

Coal only became really important after the 1615 Royal Proclamation
forbidding the use of wood for glass making and so spurring on the
industrial revolution. The remaining wood was needed for shipbuilding.

Mineral oil was even later before people really used it seriously. First
successful oil well dates from 1859 in the USA. Tallow, beeswax, plant
oils and whale oil were the preferred materials in antiquity.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Sorry for seemingly telling lies Martin, ah I see your problem it was the
fossil fuel reference, I should have said wood, bones and peat etc which
when burnt for survival immdeiatly released Co2 and other greenhouse gases.

Human control of fire and releasing Co2 was one of it's most significant
turning points in survival. Warmth, light, cooked meat, foods *and
protection from dangerous animals.
Of course the fossil stuff came much later , but never the less that really
doesn't change what I said *does it. Without the harnessing of fossil fuels
most of us e wouldn't be here let alone communicating via Computers which
are still powered by fossil fuels the last time I checked

By the way Martin, liar is a very strong word and a tad uncalled for.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tw+t is far worse and you are happy to throw that one out Lawrence,
because you happen to be "in a foul mood". Keep you replies within
decent bounds.You don't often lower yourself to the levels of
Crunchy's cross-posters and the occasional stalker, but you have been
known to. Stay level headed, even when under pressure! *))

I'm sure your lack of accuracy about coal produced the responses from
Jim and from Martin. Nobody wrote either of these statements below, so
it is difficult to see how you could be so upset by them:

"Oh lets stop using CO2 NOW" or "wouldn't it been great if wicked
callous humans hadn't have invented fire".

You made them up, didn't you? It's called creating a strawman argument
Lawrence .........and it's not the "use" of CO2 that is the issue!
We've used fossil fuels in the past, but do we really need to exhaust
the earth's resources completely and hand a wasted planet on to
generations to come. Surely alternatives are a good idea? That's why
reducing CO2 production now could be such a win-win scenario for the
future. Protecting the environment (definitely) and limiting global
warming (very highly probably). I can't believe that you simply don't
care about generations to come?

Let's have a better day from you today eh? Life in England is not all
that bad really! *))