The science isn't settled

[havelock]

One that I know Marchesarosa will approve of (if not the web site where I read it www.skepticalscience.com/Hurricanes-And-Climate-Change-Boy-Is-This-Science-Not-Settled.html

"Hurricanes And Climate Change: Boy Is This Science Not Settled
The current research into the effects of climate change on tropical storms demonstrates not only the virtues and transparency of the scientific method at work, but rebuts the frequent suggestion that scientists fit their findings to a pre-determined agenda in support of climate change. In the case of storm frequency, there is no consensus and reputable scientists have two diametrically opposed theories about increasing frequencies of such events.

The background to these enquiries stems from a simple observation: extra heat in the air or the oceans is a form of energy, and storms are driven by such energy. What we do not know is whether we might see more storms as a result of extra energy or, as other researchers believe, the storms may grow more intense, but the number might actually diminish."

[rsmith7]

Oh dear.
But they all agree that the oceans are heating up due to AGW???
Virtuous and transparent my ass.

[marchesarosa]

Roger Pielke Jr discusses this review to end all reviews of Hurricane incidence etc on his blog

Updated WMO Consensus Perspective on Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change
rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/updated-wmo-consensus-perspective-on.html

A team of researchers under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization has published a new review paper in Nature Geoscience updating consensus perspectives published in 1998 and 2006. The author team includes prominent scientists from either side of the "hurricane wars" of 2005-2006: Thomas R. Knutson, John L. McBride, Johnny Chan, Kerry Emanuel, Greg Holland, Chris Landsea, Isaac Held, James P. Kossin, A. K. Srivastava and Masato Sugi.
www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/pdf/ngeo779.pdf

Bottom line (emphasis added)
. . . we cannot at this time conclusively identify anthropogenic signals in past tropical cyclone data.

Forget the “cannot conclusively”, they cannot find the searched for “anthropogenic signal" AT ALL. And believe it, THEY TRIED!

Roger says:
“The latest WMO statement should indicate definitively that it is scientifically untenable to associate trends (i.e., in the past) in hurricane activity or damage to anthropogenic causes.”

[marchesarosa]

Can you quote any any similar body of researchers from all sides of the debate who can offer such a clear statement as this one published in February 2010, Havelock?