Canadian Politics Today

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.

oh pleeeese! You wear your fake outrage well - she's earned that label she's now tagged with. Accept it, loud & proud!

That is an opinion. Nothing more - nothing less.

and you trot out Pielke Jr, no less... in fact, very early Pielke Jr! Cause, like your go-to guy's opinion is universally accepted, right? There's certainly no papers that counter his, his,... opinion. Ya, opinion!

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.

cite your claim/statement that wind shear, "seems to {be} uniquely limited to the coasts of the US." Here, after a quick googly:
- NASA Sees Vertical Wind Shear Affecting (Northwest Pacific) Tropical Storm Muifa --- https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/03w-nw-pacific-ocean
- NASA Sees Wind Shear Battering (Western Pacific) Banyan --- https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/14w-northwestern-pacific-ocean

in any case, the link I provided certainly doesn't align with or support your strawman wind shear attempt - go fish!

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

this is one of your more prolific strawmen. You purposely conflate short-term adaptation with longer-term mitigation policies. You forever attempt to protect the "sanctity" of status-quo energy policies, always playing your mind-numbing AdaptationOnly narrative. Why, even your just touted boy Pielke Jr. is on record as delineating the two - separating out mitigation policy from adaptation pursuits. C'mon man, you need to build a stronger strawman!