So I repeat..."So what are these new miraculous studies that disprove what the IPCC said about hurricane/cyclones, droughts, floods etc?"

Specifically give me the papers issued in the last year or so that show that cyclone activity is caused by AGW after the IPCC, having reviewed all evidence up to 2014, had concluded that there was low confidence that cyclone activity was caused by AGW

The IPCC would not have been aware of this expose, mhaze:

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20102015/bernie-sanders-calls-investigation-justice-department-exxon-climate-change-science

You might find this article interesting:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-koch-brothers-toxic-empire-20140924

Where is your current science; mhaze, I see several references to new science every week through my email and Facebook

ant,

When you doubted that there were indeed 'drunken trees' back in the 19th century you asked for proof. I provided it.

When I doubt that there is any new data that would cause a rethink on the IPCC's considered view that there is low confidence that most climate 'catastrophes' are caused by AGW, you simply assert that that must be the case since there are so many papers written each year. See the difference in approach here?

Just because you want it to be so doesn't make it so.

Hang on mhaze, just steady on with the paraphrasing of the IPCC report summary. You cant just rewrite things to suit yourself.

The IPCC report does indeed use the words low confidence in this paragraph:

"There is low confidence that long-term changes in tropical
cyclone activity are robust, and there is low confidence in the
attribution of global changes to any particular cause. However, it
is virtually certain that intense tropical cyclone activity has increased in the North Atlantic since 1970."

What that is saying is not that Climate Change doesn't contribute to extreme events, but that particular global changes in tropical cyclone activity are difficult to attribute to any particular cause, including I might add that old catch-all 'natural variability'.

It is explained in the document what those terms 'low confidence' mean and why they are used. Mainly it is because the strength of the evidence are limited by various factors, depending on the statement or effect being discussed.
The way you've written your statement seems to imply that the IPCC doesn't think that Climate Change is causing any catastrophic or extreme events, which is actually not the case.

For instance, they do think it's 'very likely' that its decreasing the number of cold days and nights and increasing the number of warm days and nights globally (I know you think there's a 'pause' but they don't). Including increasing heat waves.
'Likely' that extreme sea levels (eg storm surges) have increased since 1970, due to sea level rise.

"Direct and insured losses from weather-related disasters have
increased substantially in recent decades, both globally and
regionally. Increasing exposure of people and economic assets has
been the major cause of long-term increases in economic losses from
weather- and climate-related disasters (high confidence)."

mhaze, the ExxonMobil "gate" pulls the rug from under those who deny anthropogenic climate change.
I previously mentioned the ARM 11 year study which you tried to undervalue; trying to understate climate science is a denier technique.

On that basis, you are setting yourself up as an expert, and it must be assumed that you know more than scientists who have generally spent more than 10 years to gain their PhD.

On that basis you and your denier mates must know more about:

. paleoclimate discoveries
. know more about Physics and Chemistry
. know more about Oceanography
. know more about Glaciology
. know more about Biology
. know more about Meteorology
. know more about Astrophysics
. know more about how to measure temperature
. know more about Mathematics
. know more about computer modelling
. know more about atmospherics
.all scientific papers written about climate change for the last hundred past years are known to you.
.etc etc

Many studies from different disciplines dovetail neatly into one another; yet, deniers say they know better.Scientists involved in the above disciplines have agreed that anthropogenic climate change is real. Logically, if you plan to debunk anthropogenic climate change you need to know the science intimately.

The fraud supporters are really carried away, today, by their own nonsense.
Bugsy, in effect, says that there is some significance in the fact that global warming has not been ruled out as a cause of extreme weather. So what?
None of you fraud-promoters have referred us to any science showing any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
Max Puce repeated the mantra that laboratory science showed that co2 affected climate. He had no reply when it was pointed out that the IPCC had failed to produce any empirical evidence that the science worked in the real world. When demonstrated through computer models, it failed.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/scafetta-2013-simple-solar-astronomical-model-beats-ipcc-climate-models/
The unverified IPCC models assume CO2 has a powerful influence (backed up by laboratory experiment, but not backed up with empirical data from the climate)
The statement by ant:” if you plan to debunk anthropogenic climate change you need to know the science intimately.”.
What science would that be, ant?. You have the temerity to refer to “deniers”, when you have no science to deny. There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate. Your assertions are supported only by your dishonesty. You have been repeatedly asked for science, and have none. Your chosen name is inappropriate. You shoul call yourself “flea”..