You are correct about thermometers -- we
are really good at measuring temperatures.
Early in my career I was at the NBS, now
NIST, and our lab routinely measured
temperatures to within 0.01 C.

And, right, global warming needs to be
evaluated by the average of a lot of
credible, accurate measurements of
temperature with thermometers or, now,
with satellites. A satellite in a polar
orbit might be able to get a good estimate
of average global temperature.

But what the article has is some pictures
of some snow in some place in Scotland.

And I should add, with temperatures over
time, there will be a probability
distribution with long tails of events
that do occur but have low probability.
Soooo, each year we can look around the
world and see some events from one of the
long tails, maybe in Scotland, Alaska,
Brazil, Nevada, .... Those events are to
be expected and are not good evidence of
anything about global warming. Or maybe
with a lot of global warming, some snow in
Scotland would melt. But that some snow
in Scotland melted is very weak or no good
evidence of global warming.

I see a lot of that, e.g., a claim that
the cruise ship season is now longer
because of fewer ice bergs because of
global warming.

And for each hurricane or tornado, I see
claims that those events are evidence of
climate change and, thus, a "climate
crisis".

But here is what I do not see, have so far
never seen, have looked and can't find --
reports of average global temperatures,
over time with good details on how the
measurements were made, who made them,
where the details are that I can look up
and check, from credible sources.

Here is some more that I do see:

(1) There was Al Gore's movie. He showed
a graph of temperature and CO2
concentrations from 800,000 years of ice
core data. He said that we should notice
that the temperature and CO2 "went up and
down together". Yup, they did. From that
he concluded that CO2 caused the warming
in the 800,000 year ice or data.

But, directly from the Gore's graph:

(A) When temperatures started to increase,
CO2 concentrations were low, not high.
So, something made the temperatures go up,
but it wasn't high CO2 concentrations.

(B) CO2 concentrations did go up but about
800 years AFTER the temperatures went up.
So, a good guess is that the CO2 went up
because the higher temperatures, from
whatever cause, at least initially NOT
CO2, caused more biological activity.

(C) Some thousands of years later,
temperatures fell and we got a lot of ice.
When the temperatures started down, CO2
concentrations were high, not low.
Something made the temperatures fall, but
it wasn't low CO2.

One could argue from Gore's graph that CO2
caused cooling. His graph certainly does
not support a claim that CO2 caused
warming. Looks to me like Gore was not
able to read his graph.

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Its
absorption spectrum is at

https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Units=SI&T...

So, CO2 absorbs in three narrow bands out
in the infrared. The standard explanation
is that the bands are for bending,
stretching, and twisting of the molecule.

But CO2 is transparent to visible light --
exhale or pop open a brewski and observe
that the CO2 does not cast a shadow. So,
the common claim repeated by the newsies
that CO2 absorbs sunlight is not really
correct. Instead, of course, the sunlight
warms the surface which as in Planck's
black body radiation theory radiates, and
radiates mostly out in the infrared.
There CO2 absorbs in the three narrow
bands. Then, of course, maybe soon the
molecule's energy level falls back and the
infrared is radiated again. Or the more
rapidly vibrating CO2 molecule bumps into
some other molecule and creates some
warming. Then ..., the effect on global
temperature is not easy to calculate.

(2) We had the Medieval Warm period.
There are no credible claims that the
cause was CO2 from humans. So, global
temperatures go up and down for reasons
other than CO2 from humans or CO2 at all.

(3) For 100+ years, we had the Little Ice
Age. At least much of Europe and the US
were significantly colder. Something
caused the lower temperatures, but it
wasn't lower CO2.

(4) It is not clear when we came out of
the Little Ice Age. Maybe that was 1890,
1900, 1910, 1920 -- tough to know. We can
guess that the Little Ice Age cooled the
oceans, and they are deep, often 3-7 miles
deep, and, we can guess, can take a long
time to warm up. In the early 1900s,
there was some warming. CO2 does not look
like the cause. Pulling out of the last
of the Little Ice Age looks like a better
explanation.

(5) We had some cooling from 1945 to 1970.
Then we also had, although I'd like to see
the actual numbers, often missing in this
whole subject, more CO2 from WWII and the
postwar economic boom. So, here we had
some cooling, while we had more CO2.
Again we could argue that CO2 can cause
cooling. Again, just from the
observational data, it is tough to argue
that CO2 can cause warming.

Net: So far from the more credible
observational data, (1)-(5) above, I see
no credible evidence that CO2 from any
source, humans or otherwise, has ever
caused significant warming.

(6) There were some dozens of studies,
maybe attempts at serious work, to
calculate, model, whatever, to estimate
the effect of CO2 on global temperatures.
The studies are summarized in the now
apparently well known, maybe famous, graph
at

http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg

Results: All of the studies that
predicted significant warming were proved
wrong: The times of the predicted warming
came and went years ago with no credible
evidence of the predicted warming.

A lot of the models were junk. I question
the credibility, even the honesty, of the
models of the effects of CO2.

Net, so far I see no credible evidence
that CO2 from human sources has had, is
having, or will have a significant effect
on global temperatures. No, none, nichts,
nil, nada, zip, zilch, zero. The
alarmists have shouted "wolf" way too
often and now have no credibility. Good
science can predict and find the Higgs
Boson as predicted, but the alarmists are
just unable and/or unwilling competently
to model the effects of CO2.

Instead of good science, credible
evidence, a "climate crisis", I see a hoax
and a scam, a global political movement
after money and power. That is a MUCH
more credible explanation than any
science about CO2.

So, back to the snows of Scotland: This
time it was Scotland. Next time it might
be some part of the Grand Tetons,
something in New Zealand, .... It's a big
world. If look carefully, each year
should be able to find somewhere a rare
event out in the tail of the probability
distribution. So, here, that upset some
people, I merely asked for temperature
measured with a thermometer! That is, I
want to see global temperatures measured
with thermometers or maybe some accurate
satellites and not with just pictures from
some valley in Scotland.

From page 76 of

Susan Milbrath, 'Star Gods of the Maya:
Astronomy in Art, Folklore, and Calendars
(The Linda Schele Series in Maya and
Pre-Columbian Studies)', ISBN-13
978-0292752269, University of Texas Press,
2000.

there is

"Indeed, blood sacrifice is required for
the sun to move, according to Aztec
cosmology (Durian 1971:179; Sahaguin

Sooooo, they killed people, poured their
blood on a rock, and wonder of wonders,
the sun kept moving across the sky.

If we cut way back on CO2, we can expect,
wonder of wonders, we won't get the
predicted Hudson River water level rising
to cover the NYC West Side Highway.

There are some people who really like to
push the claim of a "climate crisis".

The UN and their IPCC supported efforts to
transfer big bucks from the rich countries
to the poor ones.

People selling solar panels and wind
turbines got a lot of business.

People selling electric cars got a lot of
subsidies.

A lot of newsies got a lot of shocking
headlines, fears of disasters, standard in
the news business, eyeballs, and ad
revenue.

Some politicians got a lot of power and
some constituents eager to make political
donations.

And some Maya High Priests got power?

The predicted "hockey stick"!!!! Where's
the hockey stick????? There's zero
credibility.

Right, I conclude that the "climate
crisis" is not about CO2 at all, or
temperature, but about money and power.
Me, nope, I don't like it.