On The Criteria For Falsifying A Scientific Hypothesis

My September 29 post asked whether we could deem as “definitively falsified” the hypothesis that human-caused global warming was leading to “more and more severe” hurricanes.  The cited basis for the question was that, despite the endlessly repeated prediction of “more and more severe” hurricanes,  as of that date not a single hurricane had yet formed this season in the North Atlantic basin.  This represented a record-low rate of hurricane formation in this region since the satellite era, and comprehensive hurricane data, began in 1966.  (Since that post, five more days have passed, and there is still no hurricane in the North Atlantic.  With each passing day, the likelihood of a hurricane forming this year decreases.)  

In response to that post, I received a comment from a reader that I thought deserved a serious response.  The comment came as an email, rather than as a comment on the blog. The commenter gave his name, but since he did not post the comment on the blog I am keeping his name confidential as a courtesy.  Here is the text of the comment:

If you expect those on the other side of the global warming debate to be honest, then it behooves you to do the same.

Why did you show only the North Atlantic hurricane basin's Accumulated Cyclonic Energy (ACE), when there are two other major basins in the northern hemisphere (the northeast and northwest Pacific), and both show well-above-average ACE to this point of the hurricane season? The overall northern hemisphere's ACE is also well above its typical average at this point of the season, which contradicts your claims in the article....