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

*******

Dawlish wrote:
On Mar 5, 5:23 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

Its because of the use of Co2 that you have any decendents you ****.

Foul language. Reverting to type Lawrence? You just know the person on
the other side of the argument has lost when that's their only means
left - or in your case, their only means far, far right.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

In message , Martin Brown
writes
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


Don't confuse him with fact.
--


Jim

"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.

"Jim Kewley" wrote in message
...
In message , Martin Brown
writes
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


Don't confuse him with fact.
--


Jim

As usual a meaningless reply. Let me ask you do you think that you'd still
be here if humans hadn't utilised the energy of fossil fuels?

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! *))

On Mar 6, 4:11*am, Dawlish wrote:
...
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! *))
...

Excuse me; call me by my right name, please.

David Christainsen

On Mar 6, 12:39*pm, Meteorologist wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:11*am, Dawlish wrote:

...
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! *))
...

Excuse me; call me by my right name, please.

David Christainsen

No. It's either Crunchy, or Meteorologist. Neither is a correct
description, so I'll call you Crunchy. It's a nice nickname. The other
one is just borrowed from people that are. *))

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
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! *))


As usual you evaded the issue . I was spot on about none of us being here
without humans releasing energy from C02. Now I never doubted that the world
has warmed since the eighties with the jury still out on how much of that
warming has been from humans releasing CO2 However I would rather live here
and now than a century ago.

As for Jim Kewley he gave his usual none rational reply, you are just using
his name for succor (and there's one born every minute)as he clearly doesn't
like me.

As for England isn't that bad. Just look at the Venables news it now
transpires that this monster who has been financed by the elderly selling
their homes actually committed a serious sexual crime. I watched liberal
left idiots like Shirley Williams and Will 'Heroin consumer' Self on last
Thursday's question time. They all were for this monsters outrageously
funded 'new life' saying regardless of the fact he was free he was still on
a life sentence? Now of course there is now a new victim of this vile
creature all due to lefty/liberalism with only the best intentions. The road
to hell is paved with good intentions. Actually it this same social profile
that relies on the Evil of AGW to find a rationale to hate the west.



Yes I would rather live now than any other time in history just bring back
capital punishment, reduce welfare dependency and handouts to the so called
victims and then we would see , as you put it a much better England.

By the way you've actually contradicted your own argument several times
over recant months.

You've said on several occasions that you don't necessarily subscribe to AGW
just GW and then you make ridiculous statements like taking action now to
safe guard the future of our descendants? How can we do that if you think
the warming may not be down to humans?

So there you paint and apocalyptic scenarios and then say its not too bad
now in England. We have far more to fear from economic collapse then GW and
I'm infinitely more at risk in Sydenham SE London of being stabbed, mugged,
or just a victim of crime than I am from rising sea levels.

Lawrence, you are absolutely correct, we have thrived by releasing carbon,
it is a success story.

You are also correct that there are far more important things for
individuals to worry about than forecasts of the future climate. Many people
on this planet wonder where their next glass of clean water is to come from
:-(

The real problem is that there are now a lot of humans vying for vital
resources, it makes perfect sense to invest in new technology despite
whether you believe in global warming or not.

Will
--