Sorry in retrospect ?

Ok so for the last few decades , I have been told I'm a naughty boy & my wayward ways have caused global warming  , & even though I now use roll on deodorant , ride a highly modified , non polluting machine, no longer burn my rubbish  & try not to fart too much , I have still been hit with a pollution tax , & told I must do better .
 So watching a program on tv tonight , it stated that the Great Barrier Reef & assorted islands ( Hi Hammy ) were created 10,000 years ago ( & the great flood is even part of Aboriginal folk law ) by none other than " global warming "
 My question is , & I hope someone can give me a logical answer ,  who ,10,000 years ago do we blame for that serve of global warming , or is it perhaps part of a cycle my input has very little bearing on  . 
I'm willing to do my part ,but if history contradicts what I'm being told ,who do I believe . 

I have read several times that the earth's inclination is not stable and shifts by up to 2.5 degrees over a period of 40,000 years (may have been 42,000). This is a long cycle and such a shift in the axis is absolutely certain to bring about massive climate change. (the inclination of the axis is responsible for the seasons). Yet this fact is conspicuously absent in the climate change debate (well, so far as I have seen and heard). How can that be? Would it be such an influencing factor that the debaters don't want it interfering in their debate, they preferring to conveniently blame everything on human interference alone (and the farting cows of course with their methane polluting discharges)? I'm not saying that I am taking sides but until I hear a climate change debate that includes reference to this shift in the rotational axis of the planet I'm not prepared to believe the debate is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

There are a few other factors that don't seemed to be explained by the finger pointing either, eg if there was an ice age in the past (and it seems certain there was), and we haven't had another one since, then where does that sit in the cycle and climate change, surely an ice age is a pretty significant bit of climate change, and humans didn't cause the last one.

Similarly, my home town of Traralgon had a massive flood in about 1938 - people say it was up to the bottom of the steps of Ryan's hotel. Now that's only 75 years ago but there hasn't been a repeat of that flood since then (there have been some other pretty big ones but not that big). If we are causing massive climate change why hasn't this extreme been repeated (the corollory is that we can't explain the 1938 flood as having been caused by human interference or we would have had a repeat because since then there has been more human influence - massively so). So if we can't even work out a cycle over 75 years, what chance is there that we have properly explained a 40,000 year cycle?

PS: I'm not a scientist!

Another point of interest is , that  at Blanchetown 130 km N.E. of Adelaide ,on the River Murray , there are remnants/ fossils of sea life ,so presumably the sea was at some stage a lot higher than now , so some catastrophic changes must have occurred in the past & may again .

Ewok1958 wrote:... the farting cows of course with their methane polluting discharges...

Actually cows (and other ruminants) produce more methane through burping than farting, and this equates to more CO2 emmissions than transport, a little triva to throw into the debate.....

It is all just a way of governments getting more money out of us in taxes. There is a lime quarry in Geelong that I went to as a school kid that had fossilized sharks teeth in it, 15 kms inland from the bay and god knows how many hundreds of meters deep. Things must have shifted by a huge amount over the last xx thousand number of years. We have not seen shifts that big since the recorded time. The government don't want us to change our ways at all, the would loose too much money!

paul wrote:Another point of interest is , that  at Blanchetown 130 km N.E. of Adelaide ,on the River Murray , there are remnants/ fossils of sea life ,so presumably the sea was at some stage a lot higher than now , so some catastrophic changes must have occurred in the past & may again .

Or the gound was a lot lower below (the then) sea level.