That last statement is nothing more than a specious argument against oil use. It’s true, no doubt, that some amount of money from the petroleum industry finds its way to terrorists, but the implication that most oil producing nations of the Middle East actively support and fund terrorism is a shaky premise at best, and the (unstated) solution–to starve them all out–is counterproductive. You might as well decry Guinness drinkers for supporting the IRA.
There’s not (much) question that the average temperature of the global climate is increasing; there is significant disagreement among climatologists regarding how much it is increasing, whether the trend will accelerate or reverse, and the fundamental mechanisms behind the phenomena. The “harm in trying to address and reduce some of the believed causes of global warming” is that we’ll not only spend hundreds of billions–by some accounts, trillions–of dollars, but also reduce productivity in trying to meet some arbitrary criteria which a) may not be within our control, and b) may have no effect on global climate. This is waving a gun around in a dark room and hoping you hit an unseen intruder rather than shoot yourself in the leg. There are real costs, and real losses, in environmental restrictions. Most environmentalists actively reject any kind of cost vs. benefits analysis with regard to pollution; for the extreme, any pollution is wrong and must be stopped, an attitude that would result in famine and deindustrialization. And consider that nonindustrial nations generally have vastly higher rates of pollution per manufacturing unit or per capita gross product than developed nations because they can’t afford to reduce emissions or remediate polluted zones. “Caring for the environment” is a luxury of those whose income exceeds the necessities of life.
That being said, it is clear that this political administration is more beholden to commerical interests than conservation principles. But an honest approach has to make some assessment of the likelyhood of mitigation versus the cost of reduction efforts and the impact of each scenerio. I’ve no claim to be an expert on the “Kyoto Protocol” or its parent, the “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,” but it is the claim of many that it places undue restrictions upon the US while leveeing lax requirements on other nations. Perhaps that’s fair turnabout, considering the raw volume of pollution generated by the US in comparison to other developed nations, but it also means an additional challenge in economic global competition.
Regardless of the issue of pollution and whether we should reduce foreign oil dependence (yes, but for many other reasons), there is no rationale and no statistical basis for claiming that the current spate of hurricanes are the result of global warming or the policies of the current Administration. There are plenty of genuine complaints to be wielded without descending into casuistry.
Stranger
