As for checking snow in Scotland its pretty easy, there's a limited number of places of "perpetual snow".
EDIT: Not that "checking on snow in the past was harder" helps your argument in any way. If it was harder to check for snow a couple of hundred years ago then that makes it more likely that all snow _hadn't_ melted which is teh opposite of what you need to argue to argue against global warming.
I haven't checked, but I also don't doubt it. The point is that it's unlikely to have been this specific event. There has likely been many similar events in the past, for example when some of the rivers dried up, there were warnings from people hundreds of years ago carved into the stones.
> As for checking snow in Scotland its pretty easy, there's a limited number of places of "perpetual snow".
This may not have always been common knowledge, or if it was, something not of interest or worthy of daily check-ups.
> EDIT: Not that "checking on snow in the past was harder" helps your argument in any way. If it was harder to check for snow a couple of hundred years ago then that makes it more likely that all snow _hadn't_ melted which is teh opposite of what you need to argue to argue against global warming.
It was harder not only because of environment, but also because there was no interest in modern global warming back then, there was not the investment to pay people to investigate it.
Lastly, I'm not arguing against global warming. I'm arguing that we should be more careful about attributing every single abnormal environment change to it.
As for checking snow in Scotland its pretty easy, there's a limited number of places of "perpetual snow".
EDIT: Not that "checking on snow in the past was harder" helps your argument in any way. If it was harder to check for snow a couple of hundred years ago then that makes it more likely that all snow _hadn't_ melted which is teh opposite of what you need to argue to argue against global warming.