Canadian Politics Today

ya ya, the affectionately known Crazy Aunt Judy

An incredibly sexist comment for someone who styles themself as a 'progressive'. It is good illustration of the how many 'progressives' are hypocrites that would rather lecture other people than look in the mirror. It is this kind of name calling which make me think alarmists can't be trusted. i.e. if an alarmist says something assume it is a false until demonstrated otherwise.

Uncertainty makes adaptation a less attractive option relative to solving the problem (mitigation).

That is an opinion. Nothing more - nothing less. The fact is there is are no real 'mitigation' options that have a snowballs chance in hell of working. Therefore adaption will be what  we have to do. The only difference will between societies that waste resources on feel good exercises designed to appeal to people who think that virtue signalling is more important than results and those societies which spend those resources on adaption.

say what! Wind shear isn't some "post hoc rationalization...

The idea that wind sheer will reduce the number of hurricanes is not  new. What is new is the claim that wind shear seems to uniquely limited to the coasts of the US. In any case, hurricanes that do not hit land are not a problem and this is a good example of how the effects of warming are not necessarily a net negative.

as the most devastating Hurricane Harvey has barely passed and Hurricane Irma is just passing/landing... Hurricane Jose is forming along the same projected track as Irma.

Hurricanes have always occurred and will always occur. The claims that these storms are some how 'worse' are speculation driven by wishful thinking of ideologically motivated alarmists. The data is ambiguous at best.

In any case, the real problem is not whether GHGs are a hypothetical source of future problems (they are). The real problem is whether mitigation is a useful response. When come to hurricane damage adaptation is what we need:

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1860/2717

It finds in all cases that efforts to reduce vulnerability to losses, often called climate adaptation, have far greater potential effectiveness to reduce damage related to tropical cyclones than efforts to modulate the behaviour of storms through greenhouse gas emissions reduction policies, typically called climate mitigation and achieved through energy policies. The paper urges caution in using economic losses of tropical cyclones as justification for action on energy policies when far more potentially effective options are available.