It makes perfect sense to me that warmer Gulf waters would lead to an increase in the intensity, if not the frequency, of hurricanes in the Gulf.  Claims to the contrary by a US government agency, such as the National Hurricane Center, have to be considered in the context of a government that fires anyone who contradicts its ideological views (e.g. that climate change is not the result of human activity).  Even "independent" scientists are under pressure to downplay human impacts on climate, because most rely on government grants, and the government has been harrassing scientists who take inconvenient views.

The article mentions that a shutdown of the Gulf Stream would mean that "the winters in Western Europe may not be as pleasant in the future."  Actually, it was my understanding that a shutdown in the Gulf Stream would lead not just to colder winters but to longer winters, similar to those at comparable latitudes elsewhere.  For example, London is about at the same latitude as St. Anthony at the northern tip of Newfoundland.  Without the Gulf Stream, London could have a climate similar to St. Anthony.

London's current average temperature in January is 6° C.  St. Anthony's average for January is -11°C.  The average daily minimum in London is not now below 0° C for any month of the year.  The average daily minimum in St. Anthony is below 0° C from November through May.  London now has more than 5 months of frost-free weather per year, and hard frosts only occur during 3-4 months.  St. Anthony has no more than 3 months of frost-free weather, with hard frosts for 6 months.

The implications of this for the growing season in Britain and other parts of Europe north of the Alps are alarming.  It might become impossible to grow wheat north of Lyon or so.  The need for heating fuel could crash right up against peak oil, with people dying or exposure or immune systems weakened from coping with extreme cold.