Ben Pile has an article up at Spiked:
When Hurricane Harvey landed on Texas, it marked the end of a 12-year lull in major hurricanes hitting the US. This period – which also featured a long ‘hiatus’ in global warming, the failure of ice-free Arctic predictions and the growth of polar-bear populations – had long vexed green doomsayers. Harvey, then, came as a great relief to climate alarmists, as though a 12-year-long bout of disaster constipation had been followed by an acute case of explosive, catastrophist diarrhoea. Mother Nature had once again unleashed her wrath on the home of Big Oil.
Central to greens’ fetish for hurricanes is the scientific theory that warmer sea-surface temperatures caused by global warming can increase hurricanes’ energy and destructive power. It may well be true. But theory easily becomes dogma, and climate pundits have rushed ahead of their science. ‘Harvey is what climate change looks like’, screeched meteorologist Eric Holthaus. ‘It’s a fact: climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly’, claimed Michael Mann, a professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University.
More deadly than what? More deadly than the hurricane in 1900 that killed 8,000 people in Galveston in Texas? Or the hurricane in 2015, which took 275 lives from the same town? Or Hurricane Audrey, which killed 416 Texans in 1957? Indeed, of the 30 most deadly hurricanes to land in the US since 1850, just four occurred in the past half century. If Harvey is what ‘climate change looks like’, it looks a lot safer than the weather prior to global warming.
No matter what putative experts claim, the simple meteorological fact of the matter is that the number of hurricanes of all categories making landfall on the US has fallen.
Climate Scepticism 
Most excellent.
Thanks, Ben.
LikeLike
Or:
Beware Greens bearing GIFs
LikeLiked by 1 person
A good editorial about the hype and bias here. Apparently the damage is much less than the ‘experts’ anticipated.
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/did-climate-change-cause-hurricane-irma-to-fizzle/
LikeLike
See also this article. Both Ht GWPF
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-11/-150-billion-misfire-how-forecasters-got-irma-damage-so-wrong
LikeLike
Loss of life and, to a lesser extent, damage costs are no longer directly related to the intensity of a hurricane. They are of course very much dependent upon the track of the storm. Early warnings allow for mass evacuations, leaving mainly real estate to bear the brunt of major hurricane landfalls. Insurers count the cost generally, in developed economies. In that respect, I imagine the insurance industry in the States has been comfortably buoyed by premiums for 12 years with no major payouts for hurricane disasters, so there must be plenty in the piggy bank to pay for Harvey and Irma I imagine.
LikeLike
I agree we have had a hurricane drought, but that drought included Sandy, a hurricane turned into a non-tropical storm. And Ike, a strong 2, nearly 3, that caused a lot of damage to the Houston-Galveston region.
This underscores that on the age of highly developed shores and advanced weather detection that the game has changed.
I see no climate obsessed doomster or guilt assigned offering comments on what reduced levels of CO2 would have done to change the weather.
They can only assert, counter to science and history, thst high CO2 (as they define it) has made it worse.
The fear mongers are unable to offer any ideas based on reality of what thecweather experience if a low CO2 atmosphere would be.
What will improve first, if we actually lower CO2?
LikeLike