Politicians' opinions vs scientists' studies are a losing proposition. Rudy's approach is much more intelligent. And that says more or less "We do not know if man is causing some of the warming but we do know that pollution from oil products is a problem otherwise and we know that we need to reduce our dependence on the Middle East." So even if there is NO contribution from man we need to develop alternative energy sources such as Nuclear. If the is some contribution then this is even more imperiative.
Why get in an argument you cannot win? We cannot PROVE that man is having no impact anymore than the opposition can PROVE that he is. We can show that 95%+ of the Greenhouse gases are natural but they just counter with another fact, that CO2 levels have increased significantly.
BTW South Park had a new episode last night which had an environmental theme. Very funny.
I don't trust Rudy not to implement some democrat nonsense/regulations. Bush rejected Kyoto. Does Rudy?