To be clear I am not a AGW denier, I agree just like there where vested interest in denying the link between cancer and tobacco there are industry interests in AGW not being a thing. That being said, fear mongering and predictions being made on unfounded research because we want them to be true actually plays right into those interests hands, hence the reference to the CRU.

Here is a good paper, which states the facts without trying to attribute every disaster to AGW. You will note that they quickly distance themselves from any predictions being used by their study. Which is the right thing to do because we know, that the data does not lead to any other conclusion:

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

Some quick excerpts, but you should read the article, it is the most logical stance one can take on climate change and it's relationship to hurricanes:

>>Storm size responses to anthropogenic warming are uncertain.

>>There is less confidence in future projections of the global number of Category 4 and 5 storms, since most modeling studies project a decrease (or little change) in the global frequency of all tropical cyclones combined.

>>but these observed changes have not yet been confidently linked to anthropogenic climate change. Human activities may have already caused other changes in tropical cyclone activity that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of these changes compared to estimated natural variability, or due to observational limitations.

>>We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there remains just a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. Statistical tests indicate that this trend is
not significantly distinguishable from zero

>> the reported numbers of hurricanes were sufficiently high during the 1860s-1880s that again there is no significant positive trend in numbers beginning from that era

>>In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane frequency record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.

>>In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm activity support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic.

Point being, we don't know, and it will be a long time before we do know. So claiming the sky is falling only leads to people rejecting the real science, because it gets blurred with agenda and advocacy. Which brings it full circle, as to why I replied to this article. Which was to let HN know that people are not leaving the keys in some mass climate exodus as the article implies. They are leaving because of some very real economic issues local to the keys. The article is false on it's face and a reporter could have spent a day in the keys, to find that out, but they did not want to. They already had a title for the article, now they just need to make the facts fit. As a person that has dedicated my life to the sciences, I find advocacy hidden behind science to be detestable. This climate change fear mongering is what is turning peoples ears off to real environmental issues. It's causing more damage than good as when the predictions don't manifest, you have lost them for good. The CRU got the EPA gutted and now we are seeing many hard won environmental battles, based on good science reversed due to the fact that their very support is being eroded with lies. The very people you are talking about that have a vested interest in denial, where quick to capitalize on the fact that more people where no longer listening, by going back and fighting old lost battles with new troops.