Don't tease me.

Why would someone want to publish a perfectly good headline like this, and then fill the story that goes with it full of shoddy science? That is the most ridiculous conclusion that anyone could possibly have come up with based on the evidence as presented in the article. It's akin to the "Global Average Temperature vs. Number of Pirates" argument here. I've been looking for a reason to link to this article, and I guess that I've finally found it. Sigh. WWFSMD?