And secondly - if you have something of relevance to the discussion I'd like to hear it, but simply criticizing the style is a matter of personal preference, and personally I haven't observed your being qualified to criticize anyone on style.
Wow. A little touchy this morning, huh?
Very well.
First, as I posted on another thread, these sorts of activities should be encouraged by society. People who climb mountains and those who launch new businesses are different only in the way they choose to pursue their passion. You could try to prevent risky activities in order to score a short-term gain, but on the whole that will result in a net loss to society.
Second, regarding your comments about taxpayers bearing the burden. The National Park Service pays a total of $3 million annually for SAR activities. That's throughout the nation, and includes a lot more than just climbers. Most SAR is on a volunteer basis and doesn't cost you a cent; those who aren't volunteering are salaried and would be paid regardless. Moreover, I suspect most conservatives would agree that emergency response is a legitimate function of government.
Third, as to your comment that they were unprepared, the SAR folks on the scene have stated that they were in fact well prepared. But perhaps sitting behind your keyboard 2500 miles away gives you some special insight that those on the mountain lack.
So the only calculation to be made is to determine whether or not the tiny cost borne by the taxpayer is worth the overall societal benefit. I submit that it is. Perhaps that just makes me a "chest pounding phoney macho man".