He is certainly qualified to comment on the topic even if he uses some new-fangled technology to communicate which seems make you choke on your dentures.
The reason he uses the "newfangled technology" is because his trash can't pass peer review because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Something you would recognize if, as I said, you were HALF as skeptical about bloggers as scientists.
Here is a post that compares other contributions to the peer reviewed literature that shows roughly the same story
https://judithcurry.com/2019/02/17/hurricanes-climate-change-detection/
Judith Curry, eh?
You know my post is from the EPA themselves, right?
2) The EPA is a completely politicized agency and has no more claim to objectivity than the Cato institute so it is not clear why you think your source has more credibility.
If you're claiming the CATO Institute has the same credibility as the EPA, then there's no discussing anything with you because you're not capable of reason.
3) Your graph show no obvious trend hurricane count over 100 years. The bump at the end is hardly enough to reverse the downward trend so it is not clear what point you think you are making.
No obvious trend to you, since you're willfully blind. But you could take half a second to click the link and read the source, which explains it if you're so confused by what you're looking it. Even if it showed "no trend," that's still a very different narrative than the pile of trash you're peddling.
BTW - your immediate attempt to label a scientist who publishes in the peer reviewed literature as "discredited" is a perfect example of the hostile climate for contrarian academics. This kind of attitude simply protects the group think dominates the field and leaves us with no way to know what is real and what is an illusion created by academics that are unwilling to look at ideas that undermine their pre-determined conclusions.
I label him as discredited because he's lacking credibility, as in the things he says are proven to be lies and distortions. Again, if you showed half as much skepticism for the bloggers and deniers as you do for the scientific
consensus, you wouldn't be peddling sources that have zero credibility.