That's not correct: we have good data going back to 1851:
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.htm...
Search for "FL": hurricanes have been hitting Florida frequently for the last 175 years.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/state-summary/FL
You get a similar problem with saltwater intrusion where, yes, it's never not been a phenomenon but now it's affecting a lot more people than it used to:
https://southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/initiative/climat...
This is the conventional wisdom, and it is completely falsified by the actual data that I linked to. I wrote a python script to go process and plot it, and there has been zero increase in Cat 1, 2, 3, or 4 storms hitting the US since 1851 (there are only 4 Cat 5s listed total).
Try it for yourself.
It’s like saying the UV radiation hitting the earth is the same as it was historically so therefore an ozone hole in Australia didn’t exist and cataracts can’t be higher there.
It seems many are jumping to biases about climate change without reviewing the data as you did.
And the article should've been written with more nuance.
The idea that climate change caused hurricanes which spread insects is not impossible but seems unlikely. I don't think the statistical methods exist to prove it.
I love the stories about people in FL self-insuring now because it's cheaper to repair drywall than pay premiums.
Now, I see a slate of historical hurricanes in FL from 2004-05 that hit the Ridge area. This contradicts the article as these weren't baby storms.
The issue is clearly the rise of this blight bacteria that has made the groves less resilient to storms and has weakend production.