We are in uncharted territory - but for different reasons than you post. With respect, the reasons are:

1. the global sea temperature is averaging 1.2-1.4 degrees celsius higher.
   
2. last years season completed a new cycle of stronger hurricanes (periodic over 40 yrs) but the beginning of a cyle that had the strongest season in recorded history.

In the case of last year, they fed deeply on the wells of very, very warm water in the gulf - the gulf of mejico was always way too warm for me. I'd always have preferred the cooler waters of the greater antilles..  

One thing, though. At least one statesman (I think we should call him that now, given he seems to be the only voice to speak of this situation) has stood up about all of this to say that the next year, and years thereafter will be alot worse.

And that is Al Gore.

there's a difference between adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and adding other pollutants (like from a volcano). CO2 and methane trap warmth (global warming). other pollutants reflect the sun's energy (global dimming), contributing to a cooling of the earth (e.g., ice ages).  

We've been adding both greenhouse gases and other pollutants to the atmosphere. They cancel each other out to some extent, but greenhouse gases have been more dominant (higher gulf temperatures, etc). Yes, if we haven't been polluting so much, we would even be warmer now.

There is evidence that long-term excess greenhouse gasses do produce stronger hurricanes. See the second paper in here
which shows hurricanes can be a half-category higher with excess CO2.

The cycle argument is tied to the Acumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE Index) See link. .
But even if we are in a cycle (one cycle iteration doesn't convince me that its periodic), the 1995-2005 period is 69% over the median index whereas the 1950-1968 period was only 35% over the median. We're much higher than the cycle (if one exists) would imply.

I for one, believe that the ACE index is a bad way of ranking the intensity of hurricane years. It is biased to hurricanes that spin for a long time in water before (or if) coming ashore. Look at the time Ivan (or Dog in 1950) spent over water (google map here). For example, it ranks Ivan in 2004 as 4 times as powerful of Katrina. If Katrina (and the other 2005 hurricanes) didn't get slowed down by land,it would have pushed the index for 2005 much higher.  See the breakdown for 2004 and 2005.

Even the top researchers, knowing the cycles, predicted 2005 to have just 11 named storms.
See link. We're on track to have 26 in 2005.

It's worth noting that the Colorado researchers do not factor in global warming. They ask, if global warming caused more hurricanes, then why does it not affect those in the Pacific? Not only does this run counter to the reseach linked above, but I just don't believe that anyone would expect the exact same immediate effect in the Pacific (with twice the area) as in the Atlantic.  

There's always been some powerful hurricanes. But never so many. In 1979 we did have David, but look at the rest of the year (for example select 1979 here.)

CO2 and the cycles alone don't appear cause 2005 to break all the rules. There's got to be something else that enabled the hurricanes this year to rapidly form in face of wind shear.