"Claims for the earliest definitive evidence of control of fire by a member of Homo range from 1.7 to 2.0 million years ago "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_hum...

You don't need to be able to start a fire, when you keep the fire burning all the time. And you can do that, once you control the fire and figure out the difference between dry and wet wood.

Also humans are the dominating species on land since quite a while. Hunting certain species to extinctiom has certain effects on the local ecosystem and globally on the global climate. It all adds up.

But things surely changed in dimension since industrialisation.

People had fire in those times but it's extremely unlikely they produced enough CO2 to have an anthropogenic impact on the climate leading to large-scale temperature changes.

I'm not sure what your perspective on this situation is but I think the case for modern anthropogenic climate change with deleterious effects is based on a wide range of different evidence, and a careful accumulation of facts and analysis. Simply pointing out that humans had fire 2Mya doesn't change the general conclusion about today.

I suspect gr main change caused by humans >100 k years ago will be wiping out various species and starting fires in seasons and places where fires wouldn't normally start (eg. In places without dry lightning or volcanoes - the only two other ways fires naturally start)

I always wonder about that natural fission reactor in Gabon. They discovered the Uranium was pre depleted in particular mines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo_Mine

Fun to imagine the possibilities.

That was more than a billion years ago, so no.

I’ll take a risk and be skeptical of that claim and see how my life turns out.

Maybe consult the very first paragraph of the article you cited.

I read it but I didn't take it as proof. A team of people when faced with a mystery and the came up with an answer.

They is not the same as proof in my book. I also did poorly in school. I'm not good at taking this as stated. I enjoy wallowing in the unknown rather than believe everything I'm told to me own detriment.

A wikipedia article does not pretend to be proof. It is a summary. For proof you would need to look at the, y'know, evidence. The decay rates of the isotopes involved are known exactly. It is hard to find anything more certain than timelines revealed by radioactive decay.

I see we disagree on this point.