What the IPCC Doesn’t Want You to Know About Hurricanes
June has arrived, marking the official start of hurricane season… and, like clockwork, the beginning of another season of climate propaganda
For the media and the climate-industrial complex, every low-pressure system is an opportunity to push a fear-driven narrative: that hurricanes are getting stronger, more frequent, and more deadly due to human-caused ‘climate change’.
But here’s the problem: warming itself is not especially dangerous. On its own, a gradual increase in global average temperature doesn’t inspire panic… it doesn’t justify emergency declarations or trillion-dollar policies.
That’s why the IPCC and its media allies must link warming to disasters. It’s not the thermometer that scares people… It’s the hurricane footage.
This connection between ‘climate change’ and bad weather isn’t just casual… It’s strategic. The ‘climate crisis’, as we know it, depends on linking human emissions to catastrophic events, even when the data doesn’t support it.
And nowhere is this more obvious than in how hurricanes are presented to the public.
Case in point: 2025 has kicked off with a conspicuous lull in storm activity. According to a recent FOX Weather article, the Atlantic basin remained uncharacteristically quiet for a fourth year in a row, a trend never predicted by IPCC models.
Where are the early-season superstorms we were told to expect? The models said they’d increase… but they haven’t. If the narrative were based on actual data, we might be rethinking the entire premise of “climate-fueled hurricanes.”
Instead, the silence is ignored.
It doesn’t matter that the data says otherwise… It doesn’t matter that the scientific literature is filled with caveats, uncertainty, and counter-evidence… All that matters are the ‘climate crisis’ headlines.
The IPCC has long predicted a rise in both the frequency and severity of tropical cyclones, offering convenient fodder for media outlets looking to dramatize every storm.
But these claims have not been borne out by observations.
In fact, quite the opposite: there is growing evidence that hurricanes are not increasing in frequency, are not becoming more destructive, and that some of the most recent seasons—like the one we’re entering now—begin with historic lulls, not record-breaking activity.
The disconnect between what’s predicted and what’s happening isn’t just a minor detail… It’s the central flaw in the climate hurricane narrative. If the IPCC’s models and assumptions can’t even account for a basic feature like seasonality or storm frequency, why should we trust them on matters of long-term risk, funding, or global policy?
Every year, media outlets seize on a handful of storms, sometimes before they’ve even formed, and attribute their intensity to ‘climate change’.
They’ll claim a hurricane’s rainfall was made “500 times more intense” by global warming… they’ll label storms “unprecedented” without acknowledging the limits of our observational records or the role of natural variability.
They’ll publish headlines like “climate change is supercharging hurricanes” without citing a single study that actually supports that claim.
Meanwhile, those same headlines conveniently omit that global Accumulated Cyclone Energy is trending downward… that major hurricane proportions have remained stable… that deaths from hurricanes have plummeted.
If you’ve ever suspected that what you’re being told about hurricanes and ‘climate change’ doesn’t quite add up… you’re not wrong.
Everything, from the models to the media coverage, has been tilted to support a specific narrative: one that justifies massive spending, sweeping regulation, and unquestioning public compliance.
All in the name of ‘saving the planet’ that is not in danger.
See more here substack.com
Bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matthew,
Good article but you didn’t call attention to the previous glaciers: for which there are abundant observations of their long period (about 16,000- 17,000 years) cyclic occurrence That we, based upon observed evidence, conclude that this natural phenomenon is periodic must mean there has been more than one in the history of the EARTH. And much of the evidence is found near 45 degrees North Latitude where the majority of the Earth’s population now live. Hence, it seems likely the people who live in the Tropics will not be seriously affected by any glaciers.
Another fact, not commonly considered, is that a 1,000 years is more than 10 normal lifetimes. Hence, even if we know glaciers are cyclic, we certainly do not know if they well occur during our lifetime. So, the only thing one can do is be prepared to meet this MAKER, who gave us LIFE.
Have a good day
Reply