Moreover, it should be noted that this article describes a study based on computer models. Models can generate hypotheses that can be tested with data. Models are not, in themselves, evidence; they generate predictions that should be compared with empirical evidence to assess the models' validity. The data do not provide convincing evidence of an increasing trend in the number of intense storms.
Further my last, it is ironic that the storm that precipitated the debate referred to in the article--Katrina (note the article's mention of the 13 month debate)--was not that intense. Indeed, recent analysis strongly suggests that it was a garden variety Category 1 storm by the time it hit NOLA. However, even a weak punch can deliver a knockout blow if it connects with a glass jaw, and the combination of bad geography and bad engineering made NOLA uniquely vulnerable.
We're supposed to be impressed that they used 80 different models. If a model can accurately represent what is going on isn't one enough? 80 indicates they don't have much of a handle on it. Is a consensus of 80 computer models really science?