Freed from the need to feign journalistic objectivity, former New York Times global warming reporter Andrew Revkin — author of two slutty (but fawning) takes on climate dogma — has made his way to the op-ed page. Channeling Tom Friedman, today the Amazing Revkin focuses on all this crazy weather (which is not climate) we’ve seen lately:

Though today’s extremes can’t be reliably attributed to the greenhouse effect, they do give us the feel, sweat and all, of what’s to come if emissions are not reined in. Martin Hoerling told me that by the end of the century, this summer’s heat may be the status quo in parts of Russia, not a devastating fluke. Similar projections exist for Washington, the American Southwest, much of India and many other spots.

With the global population cresting in the coming decades, our exposure to extreme events will only worsen. So whatever nations decide to do about greenhouse gas emissions, there is an urgent need to “climate proof” human endeavors. That means building roads in Pakistan and reservoirs in Malawi that can withstand flooding. And it means no longer encouraging construction in flood plains, as we have been doing in areas around St. Louis that were submerged in the great 1993 Mississippi deluge.

I’m sure the Amazing Revkin’s thought experiments on “climate proofing” human endeavors also include limitations on procreation, as I noted last year from a Worldwatch Institute blog post:

At a Wilson Center discussion on Wednesday, New York Timesreporter Andrew Revkin considered this idea and stated that having fewer children was one of the best ways that individuals could reduce their carbon footprints. Humans reproduce exponentially, and having two children instead of three could reduce energy consumption that would otherwise occur for generations.

Where do these crazy people get such ideas?!