Phil L wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

Phils question was delightfully simple, I'll re post it so you can't
ignore it;
"If it was first noticed 100 years ago, it's fairly safe to say that
it had been occuring for centuries before that, so how is it
mankind's fault, when the world population 300 - 400 years ago was a
tiny fraction of what it is now, and virtually none of them used
fossil fuels?" Got any answers ****wit?
With every post you get further and further into insanity. Phil got an
answer and hasn't come back again. If I had ignored it Phil wouldn't
have got that answer.


The wiki page got boring after 2 minutes, but I didn't see any explanation
as to when this 'trend' began, or any possible causes


You can churn out as many lies as you like but none of them alter the
reality or the fact that you are a clueless idiot who doesn't
understand the first thing about science.

I'm not denying that climate change is occuring, I'm just saying that it's
highly unlikely to have anything whatsoever to do with mankind.

well that's a statement that stands aghast of anything.

how can man's activities NOT have an effect?

Since plants obviously do and more and more land surface is less and
less plants and we are buring up all the plant life from a few million
years ago...

The earth regularly warms and cools over millions of years, or occasionally,
very rapidly. This has occured hundreds, if not thousands of times according
to scientists, and yet mankind has only been around for one, maybe two of
these cycles.

yes, but this time there is no major volcanic eruption, no asteroid
impact and no major change in solar activity to point the finger at.