Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:26 am, Peter Franks wrote:
[ . . . ]
That is not a scientific response. The question is honest and valid,
and more importantly, relevant to your original posting.

NOPE! You're question would be on topic only if
"the little ice age" happened in the past 129 years.
Otherwise, you were posting off topic.

Really?

Only data and observations from the last 129 are relevant to the study
of warming/climate change?

Hardly.

What was the cause of the 'Little Ice Age'? Have the causes been
sufficiently identified, and are the effects well known? Are the
opposite causes in effect now, in part or in whole? Are the opposite
effects well known?

Every time I bring up the Little Ice Age, I get either no response, or
no substantive response from you. Why is that? Before you answer this
question, answer the previous ones please.