Can we blame the severity of Hurricane Katrina on human-induced climate change? Don't bet on it. NR editor Rich Lowry summarizes the arguments here. He also responds to some reader e-mail here. This Pat Michaels piece is also worth a look.

There's also an interesting exchange between Grist's Dave Roberts and Roger Pielke Jr. on the subject. Roberts begins by posing these "tough questions":

In the end, greens concerned about global warming face a choice. Do they stick to scrupulous standards of scientific accuracy, with all the hedging and qualifying that entails, at the risk of being boring and losing an opportunity to galvanize action? Or do they fudge a bit, propagandize a bit, indulge in a little bit of theater and showmanship?

Pielke, who has co-authored peer-reviewed work on hurricanes and climate (along with prior posts like this one), responds

Roberts suggests that the question of fudging science is a tough one. Not for me. I'm pretty much all for scrupulous standards of scientific accuracy. Fudging science can certainly lead to some short term political gains, but in the end it is not good for science and certainly not good for democracy.

Roberts responds further and, after some back-and-forth, concludes:

So: Roger spends his life studying the way we prepare for and respond to hurricanes (which is not well). He determines that thousands, perhaps millions, of lives could be saved with some relatively straightforward measures -- decreasing population density along coasts, developing better warning systems, etc. Despite the enormous stakes and growing loss of life, disaster preparation is largely ignored and underfunded, especially relative to the international hubbub over climate change.

Then, the climate-change crowd starts jumping on his issue -- hurricanes -- to advance their energy policies, which at best will save lives many decades in the future and at worst will waste invaluable time, money, and energy. To him, this is tantamount to sacrificing people that could have been saved with more immediately efficacious action. Responding to global warming, he insists, is something to do instead of or in addition to disaster preparation, but we shouldn't pretend that it is a form of disaster prep.

So yeah, I can see where he's coming from.

Alas, some environmental writers are very willing, in Pielke's words, to "fudge away." See, e.g. this piece.