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.

You are a pathological liar and are now making things up to try and
justify your original lie. The phrase that constitutes your big *LIE* is
conveniently all in capitals at the top for all to see and laugh at.

You are a perfect example of why paranoid lying rightards and their
pretend fantasy "dittohead science" cannot be trusted.

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.

Which was all based on renewable sources until very recently. Whale
numbers are still suffering from their utility as lamp oil and later pet
food.

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

It changes what you said by 180 degrees. You are a pathological liar.

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

Not at all it describes you perfectly. It is clear for all to see.

There is no chance at all that humans would have become extinct
thousands of years ago without fossil fuels. It was an outright lie.

Regards,
Martin Brown

"Will Hand" wrote in message
...
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
--



Absolutely aggree Will, when you consider that the worlds population was
estimated to be in 1000 AD to be around 200 million and now over six
billion! It's a testament to the remarkable progress made by capitalist
economy whose engine was literally fossil fuel . Add to that the 100 odd %
increase in life expectancy then it is truely a remarkable success story.
However I totally aggree that it can't go on like this unless some
miracoulous leap in science regarding free or cheap inexaustable energy and
the feasiblity of colonising our solar system and beyond then some serious
problems lay ahead. I think its shown that with a higer stanadrd of living
and that doesn't necessarily mean owing more things then the birthrate
begins to slow like it has amongst the developed world populations.


As you say AGW is not the main issue I reckon the Bjorn Lomberg talks a
lot of sense. If AGW was an issue there are far bigger sustainable of
course, fish to fry .

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
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.

You are a pathological liar and are now making things up to try and
justify your original lie. The phrase that constitutes your big *LIE* is
conveniently all in capitals at the top for all to see and laugh at.

You are a perfect example of why paranoid lying rightards and their
pretend fantasy "dittohead science" cannot be trusted.

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.

Which was all based on renewable sources until very recently. Whale
numbers are still suffering from their utility as lamp oil and later pet
food.

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

It changes what you said by 180 degrees. You are a pathological liar.

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

Not at all it describes you perfectly. It is clear for all to see.

There is no chance at all that humans would have become extinct thousands
of years ago without fossil fuels. It was an outright lie.

Regards,
Martin Brown


Martin a lie is when you know you are not telling the truth I happen to
believe in what I've said so you could argue I'm wrong , mistaken etc. but
please don't use that word liar.

Without the industrial revolution which could only happen by the harnessing
of fossil fuels then we would live in wretched sad miserable conditions.
People like you are not only rude but are totally talking out of their
backsides. If you cannot recognise the facts that we live far longer are not
riddled with syphilis, gonorrhea, polio (which I had by the way I just
missed out on the vaccine) and a whole host of bacterial and viral
infections that were stopped in their tracks by the science and industry
based of the energy released by fossil fuel then there can be no arguing
with such ignorance of the facts.

It's you that are the liar as you desperately revise history to suit your
own agenda.

In message , Lawrence
Jenkins writes

It's you that are the liar as you desperately revise history to suit your
own agenda.


And how is the degenerative eye disease then?

Martin has you summed up with great accuracy.
--


Jim

"Jim Kewley" wrote in message
...
In message , Lawrence Jenkins
writes

It's you that are the liar as you desperately revise history to suit your
own agenda.


And how is the degenerative eye disease then?

Martin has you summed up with great accuracy.
--


Jim


You jnow that was to make you shut your stupid mouth and it workeda treat
as it made you realise what an obnoxious bully you are. However only behind
a keyboard typical really.

However what I said in my post about the viral infection is true 1953.

I also note Kewley that you failed to answer my question.

In message , Lawrence
Jenkins writes


It's you that are the liar as you desperately revise history to suit your
own agenda.


And how is the degenerative eye disease then?

Martin has you summed up with great accuracy.
--


Jim


You jnow that was to make you shut your stupid mouth and it workeda treat
as it made you realise what an obnoxious bully you are. However only behind
a keyboard typical really.

Really? I'm a bully? That's a good one coming from you.

However what I said in my post about the viral infection is true 1953.

Ah diddums did mummy wipe your bum for you?

--


Jim

On Mar 6, 4:46*am, Dawlish wrote:
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. *))

Excuse me; good form dictates that you grant
me my request without equivocation.

David Christainsen

On Mar 7, 6:24*am, Meteorologist wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:46*am, Dawlish wrote:





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. *))

Excuse me; good form dictates that you grant
me my request without equivocation.

David Christainsen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have Crunchy. I said his work was interesting, but no more. It's no
more than that, as his work predicts that during periods of low solar
output, the sun's magnetic field can't protect us from cosmic rays
which may increase cloud cover. Unfortunately current global
temperatures simply don't bear out his theory. We've had a very quiet
sun for well over 4 years now and though solar cycle 24 has started,
sunspot activity is very low.

If the sun's output is low, more clouds should have been created,
blocking more of the sun's heating and causing cooling, so why has the
world experienced such high temperatures over the last 5 years? If
Svensmark is correct, why hasn't this extended solar minimum produced
the cooling that he predicted?

Rising global temperatures, not theories, are the only measure of
whether the climate is warming.

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 6:24 am, Meteorologist wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:46 am, Dawlish wrote:





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. *))

Excuse me; good form dictates that you grant
me my request without equivocation.

David Christainsen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have Crunchy. I said his work was interesting, but no more. It's no
more than that, as his work predicts that during periods of low solar
output, the sun's magnetic field can't protect us from cosmic rays
which may increase cloud cover. Unfortunately current global
temperatures simply don't bear out his theory. We've had a very quiet
sun for well over 4 years now and though solar cycle 24 has started,
sunspot activity is very low.

If the sun's output is low, more clouds should have been created,
blocking more of the sun's heating and causing cooling, so why has the
world experienced such high temperatures over the last 5 years? If
Svensmark is correct, why hasn't this extended solar minimum produced
the cooling that he predicted?

Rising global temperatures, not theories, are the only measure of
whether the climate is warming.


Hmmm if you insist on calling Dave a crunchy after the honeycomb chocolate
bar, than that easily qualifies you as a Flake.

On Mar 7, 2:15*pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Mar 7, 6:24 am, Meteorologist wrote:





On Mar 6, 4:46 am, Dawlish wrote:

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. *))

Excuse me; good form dictates that you grant
me my request without equivocation.

David Christainsen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have Crunchy. I said his work was interesting, but no more. It's no
more than that, as his work predicts that during periods of low solar
output, the sun's magnetic field can't protect us from cosmic rays
which may increase cloud cover. Unfortunately current global
temperatures simply don't bear out his theory. We've had a very quiet
sun for well over 4 years now and though solar cycle 24 has started,
sunspot activity is very low.

If the sun's output is low, more clouds should have been created,
blocking more of the sun's heating and causing cooling, so why has the
world experienced such high temperatures over the last 5 years? If
Svensmark is correct, why hasn't this extended solar minimum produced
the cooling that he predicted?

Rising global temperatures, not theories, are the only measure of
whether the climate is warming.

Hmmm if you insist on calling Dave a crunchy after the honeycomb chocolate
bar, than that easily qualifies you as a Flake.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll take Flake anyday Lawrence. I can never think of that particular
chocolate bar without thinking of the advert..............

I note you've had zilch to say about the current state of global
temperatures, or Svensmark's work. Not surprising.