I just sent this e-mail to BBC News.

Please allow me to extend my gratitude to BBC News for providing the voice of reason in the ongoing debate surrounding hurricanes and global warming.  Your article, "Hurricanes and global warming – a link?", dared to stand against the tide of radical environmentalism and state clearly for the record that claims of a causal relationship between global warming and increased hurricane activity (especially during the current season) are assumptions rather than scientific conclusions.  The data regarding climate change as yet do not support any links between the two, while historical records clearly indicate the opposite: this is part of a natural cycle that we have seen and documented before.  America has slightly more than 200 years of weather records, including the last 35 years of satellite observations and at least 170 years of pre-satellite information preceding that, which clearly indicate this is a naturally occurring decadal cycle involving many different weather patterns across the globe.

While further study, as you say, of the global warming phenomena (including whether it's a climate phenomena or a result of mass hysteria generated by junk science) is of the utmost importance, any claims at present that humans are somehow responsible remain laughable at best and a betrayal of good science at worst.  Records indicate that hurricane strength and the frequency with which they have struck the US are actually lower now than they have been in the past.  Hurricane seasons throughout the 1940s were significantly more active and intense than even this year, yet I hear no one in the "let's blame global warming and, thereby, the US" camp admitting to this.

The fact that sea surface temperatures are actually cooler today than they were 50 years ago seem to indicate, when correlated with all available weather data and records, that this is indeed a natural cycle.  Such data contradicts the claims that these temperatures are significantly higher now than they have been in the past and that this can be directly linked to human-affected climate change.  Sadly, the BBC appears to be the only news source to report this.

Despite the clarity of existing data and their conclusions, you aptly point out that many who wish to see a relationship where none currently exists are more than willing to "go much further in their public statements than the data allow." This is commonly referred to as alarmism and, in this case, junk science.

More study is needed.  A better understanding of global weather patterns and the decadal and centennial cycles that the planet naturally experiences is needed before any causal relationship can be claimed, and then only if one is actually found.  While reducing pollution, ensuring the health of the environment, protecting the planet from human effluence, conservation of natural resources and finding renewable energy sources are all extremely important objectives that should be ceaselessly pursued, justifying them by way of the retardation and corruption of true science will ultimately prove disastrous as people learn they cannot trust those who claim understanding.  It is, ultimately, a betrayal of the scientific method and an abhorrent hijacking of the truth.

Again, thank you for stepping back from the headlines long enough to publish a sound, logical, precise assessment of the situation.  It is indeed quite refreshing to see a major media outlet choose truth and honesty over sensationalism and headline grabbing.  You've definitely restored my faith in the news.