Canadian Politics Today

having put the appropriate perspective on your linked author/article reference and false statements/claims, you so ignorantly miss the most salient point concerning Hurricane Sandy;

This harping on completely irrelevant details while ignoring the main points presented is your modus operandi. You depend on it for your pointless declarations that any argument you disagree with 'refuted' simply because you can't deal with the substance of the arguments presented. In this case the substance is the NOAA quite clearly states there is no evidence that climate change is affecting the number of storms and the only possible climate change effect is the change in sea level but even that effect is debatable for the reasons related to the tides and historical records (as unreliable as they are). The  argument trying to link a single storm event to pressure changes over Greenland stinks of post hoc rationalization and would require decades more of data before it could be considered to be credible link. It certainly cannot refute the points that the NOAA did make.

One of the aspects of these forums that you don't seem to understand is no matter how many links you post to carefully selected blogs and newspaper articles you are only presenting someone else's opinion. This is true even if you cherry pick some peer reviewed papers where the caveats and limitations of the analysis are usually not available in the public abstracts.  I have stopped posting my own links because I realized their is no point with these topics because most readers do not have the desire or ability to assess each link on the merits of the argument and instead rely on tribal affiliation to determine which sources to treat as credible (In the past, I was naive and believed that most people were interested in understanding different POVs rather than simply seeking affirmation of positions they already hold).

Ironically - I believe you know that too which is why you try to overwhelm any dissent from your AGW religion with volumes text knowing that many people will not read it carefully and are only looking for an excuse to ignore information that may require them to rethink their position.

Personally, I have no idea what the consequences will be from CO2 but I have so much contempt for the field of climate science because of their obsession with enforcing a "consensus" for political reasons that I do not believe that scientists working in the field are capable of providing a honest assessment of the state of knowledge. I also suspect that the CO2 will disappear as an issue in the same way that the 'population bomb' disappeared as an issue in the 70-80s. i.e. a combination of improvements in technology and unexpected social change eliminated the problem without any special intervention by governments.