The Daily Mail? Jesus Christ...and you say environmental groups can't be trusted.

We did very little of it until the Industrial revolution, and certainly didn't have much in the way of commercial exploitation until then. If you couldn't get it from a tar pit or the surface you didn't have it. Still, it's a fair point. But then, there may be nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels, in which case the analogy falls down.

Sorry, that's just plain wrong.

The Chinese used coal to smelt copper and iron 3000 years ago.

In ancient Britain the Romans used coal extensively.

There is a mine in the Netherands that has been mined since the 1100s.

Even, Aristotle's writings mention the use of coal.

And the irish have been burning turf for centuries. It's a relative thing. The first commercial railway probably burned more fossil fuel than had ever been burned before in the history of human civilisation in its first three weeks of operation.

I doubt that very much given the fact that the first commercial railways were horse drawn.

oh no! Are we back to the methane argument?

No, we're just back to talking about everything except the science of global warming.

Thunderstorms. Right?

Shouldn't they be getting less powerful with CO2 as a major greenhouse gas?

No, you were making incorrect statements to justify your opinions.

Why pray tell would that be?

There's an article in today's Times about warming:

World may not be warming, say scientists

And a link to the report discussed in the article:

Report


S

That report was prepared by the Science and Public Policy Institute.

Who ?

Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University: “The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years,” he said.

Google it.

Also, the article is by Jonathan Leake who was previously been exposed for concealing facts and misquoting scientists. It sells papers and makes a good story though.