Slate owes me royalties. Remember a few days ago, when I told you how moronic it is to blame Katrina on global warming? Of course you don't, because only three of you read it, and one of those was too pissed off by my call for moderation to comment. That's why you were all punished with four column feet of ranting about football yesterday.
Be that as it may, in a heartwarming display of internecine warfare in the biased liberal media, Slate has gone after Nicholas Kristof's idiotic Sunday Times column attempting to link Katrina to Bush's failure to sign the Kyoto protocol. After admitting that "we don't know whether Katrina was linked to global warming," Kristof proceeds to attempt to link Katrina to global warming. He then virtually ignores the evidence on natural tropical cycles and focuses on one scientist who also blithely ignores--and lies about--the evidence on natural tropical cycles, claiming that the recent upswing is "unprecedented."
We have no idea whether the recent upswing is unprecedented. There is a body of evidence on the cyclical nature of the thing, but as your government notes here, more research is needed. Your government also offers this tidbit in the same FAQ on cyclones. I know, I know. You don't believe your government. WMDs, cyclonic activity, the baby Jesus...what's next from these lying liartons?
Kristof's a jackass, I need to redouble my tinfoil hat to protect me from the predations of Slate, and while the Bush administration utterly failed the people of the Gulf Coast and needs to be held to account for it, let's just put that on our calendars for November 2008, shall we? Because inept and patently untruthful reporting isn't any more palatable coming from our side than it is coming from theirs.