Snake thermometry discussion in Nature

Long discussion in Nature about the accuracy of using giant snakes as paleo thermometers.  Interesting reading ...

Biased reptilian palaeothermometer? ppE1-E2
J. M. Kale Sniderman
doi:10.1038/nature08222
Abstract:
Article:

Re-calibrating the snake palaeothermometer ppE2-E3
Anastassia M. Makarieva, Victor G. Gorshkov and Bai-Lian Li
doi:10.1038/nature08223
Abstract:
Article:

Can the giant snake predict palaeoclimate? ppE3-E4
Mark W. Denny, Brent L. Lockwood and George N. Somero
doi:10.1038/nature08224
Abstract:
Article:

Head et al. reply ppE4-E5
Jason J. Head et al.
doi:10.1038/nature08225
Abstract:
Article:

Quote:
They suggest a larger snake can cool itself off by uncoiling more often.  Or something like that.  So it wouldn't need to be as warm because a big snake could keep itself warm by coiling and preserving heat.  Or something like that anyway. 

Quote:
Head et al. make this point in their rebuttal, that behavior isn't sufficient to explain size. 

What kind of snake do you own?  I read a story a long time ago that a mongoose's reputation as a snake killer is enhanced because the cobra is a particularly slow-striking snake.  If a mongoose tries to attack a rattlesnake, for instance, the snake nearly always wins since a rattlesnake is much faster than a cobra.  My personal all-time favorite snake is the boomslang, because of its role in the untimely demise of noted herpetologist Karl Schmidt. 

Quote:
You've kept cottonmouths as pets?  Gnarly.

I think the response of Head et al. is pretty good, that even if the criticisms are valid they don't make a lot of difference.  The size of titanoboa still means it was a lot warmer in the tropics than deduced from leaf stoma. 

This next part is an educated guess, meaning it's probably wrong, but I think the snake results are likely correct.  This is because it supports the prediction from the physics that the equator should be warmer than the leaf stoma temperature proxy data indicate.  I tend to think the physics of climate are fairly well understood, and if the climate physicists can't explain how you can have very warm poles without very warm tropics, then there is something wrong with the data indicating moderate temperatures in the tropics (in this case the leaf stoma temperature proxies). 

Put simply, if a new measurement can explain an existing inconsistency in the physics, it is more likely than not that the new measurement is correct.  The current objections are pretty standard and observed whenever someone comes up with a new idea. 

But that is a guess, I don't have much of a background in biology.