Pop science strikes again

It must be a disappointing fall season for the sky-is-falling crowd. The projected blevy of global-warming-fueled super hurricanes has failed to materialize, replaced by a few popcorn swirls that even the 24/7 media couldn't overhype. Sounds like a good time for a reminder of how republican policies are sizzling the planet like a side of beef on Bush's Crawford barbeque pit.

And presto, here it is:

The planet's temperature has climbed to levels not seen in thousands of years, warming that has begun to affect plants and animals, researchers report in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

It's always amazing they could so accurately assess the earth's global temperatures before ship traffic was..there. And before men invented thermometers.

Ok, ok, it's based on something called proxy data--not like the Islamic proxy terrorists used by both Iraq and Iran, rather things like ice cores and tree ring samples. Problem is, the data network is not exactly uniform. However, that doesn't stop the sensationalism:

That brings the overall temperature to the warmest in the current interglacial period, which began about 12,000 years ago.

The word "intgerglacial" should not be overlooked. But the question is not whether it's warming, but how much has occurred lately, like the past 30 years since reliable instrumentation began.

All the data before the end of the 19th century (when a network of weather instruments were put in place by the Army Signal Corps, precursor of the National Weather Service) is based on speculation. Put simply, when scientists make statements such as these..

The study said the recent warming has brought global temperature to a level within about one degree Celsius — 1.8 degree Fahrenheit — of the maximum temperature of the past million years

..without adding scientific qualifiers, it tarnishes science and degrades the message. It doesn't help when the media reports such things without question, such as how anyone could equatably compare scientifically measured global temperatures of today with proxy estimations crunched by algorithms that have trouble predicting atmospheric conditions five days out. It makes them look like a bunch of loyal stenographers rather than real journalists.

MORE 9/26/06

Kudos to Mark Jaffe of the Denver Post. His column linked on Drudge is a very well-researched and well-balanced look at the global warming debate. Dr. Gray certainly has experience on his side, but it's also possible he's got a political dog in this fight just like so many comprising the IPCC global warming team.

The other story on Drudge from Senator Inhofe is politically-motivated and considers only the skeptic side--therefore should be taken with a grain as well. Besides, this debate should be led by scientists, not politicians. Surely Al Gore would agree.