I don't have time to research all your sources. Perhaps some are sincere in their views, but Bastardi, chief forecaster at Weatherbell Analytics which offers 'an industry specific package for “energy companies, hedge funds, or related businesses,' and Maue are suspect in being funded precisely by those who have most to gain by denying climate science.

My point is, Ivo, you cherry-pick denialists (some very questionable) and ignore those who disagree with them. Moreover, you brand those with consensus views as 'zealots who use major disasters to score propaganda points' and accuse them of 'holding both science and humanity in contempt.'

Ad hominem much yourself?

Is that really your view of the 97% of scientists who (usually very cautiously, but some more vocally) agree that anthrpogenic climate change is real and that warming oceans will tend to produce more frequent and stronger hurricanes?

And if so, what is their agenda? Cui bono, Ivo?