"It appears that a large segment of the population bases much of it's "philosophy" upon whether they will be inconvenienced."

This idea is unsupported by any facts, and is merely demonstrating the intelligence of a parrot, repeating some word you heard somewhere: inconvenience. Though slightly smarter because you managed to put a "d" on the end of the word

"If the idea of global warming is recognized, then there may be limitations in the use of certain types of fuels and some increased costs. Therefore there is no global warming."

It should be noted that there are already limitation certain types of fuel and it has increased cost. It should also to noted the people generally want to lower the cost they spend of anything, and therefore most people will pick the higher mileage car. Though certain a color of a car might have a stronger appeal to some people.

"If there are requirements for increased fuel efficiency in vehicles, there may be an increased cost for those, too. Therefore it is unwise and unnecessary to increase fuel efficiency."

You probably have no clue how to increase fuel efficiency, and if I bothered to explain it to you, you wouldn't listen.

"If there is a benefit to the environment in having more energy efficient appliances, such as light bulbs, and those might cost more, to them that is a gross invasion of privacy and should not be applied."

And every time some drop one, it's hazardous material alert.

Yet, in your infinite wisdom in such matters, you might missed a post I made months or even years ago [and of course widely known by people who have any clue] that LEDs are far more efficient and last longer than incandescent light bulbs or even these so called "environmentally friendly" light bulbs.
Advantages of using LEDs:
* LEDs produce more light per watt than incandescent bulbs; this is useful in battery powered or energy-saving devices. [24]
* LEDs can emit light of an intended color without the use of color filters that traditional lighting methods require. This is more efficient and can lower initial costs.
* The solid package of the LED can be designed to focus its light. Incandescent and fluorescent sources often require an external reflector to collect light and direct it in a usable manner.
* When used in applications where dimming is required, LEDs do not change their color tint as the current passing through them is lowered, unlike incandescent lamps, which turn yellow.
* LEDs are ideal for use in applications that are subject to frequent on-off cycling, unlike fluorescent lamps that burn out more quickly when cycled frequently, or HID lamps that require a long time before restarting.
* LEDs, being solid state components, are difficult to damage with external shock. Fluorescent and incandescent bulbs are easily broken if dropped on the ground.
* LEDs can have a relatively long useful life. One report estimates 35,000 to 50,000 hours of useful life, though time to complete failure may be longer.[25] Fluorescent tubes typically are rated at about 30,000 hours, and incandescent light bulbs at 1,000–2,000 hours.[citation needed]
* LEDs mostly fail by dimming over time, rather than the abrupt burn-out of incandescent bulbs.[26]
* LEDs light up very quickly. A typical red indicator LED will achieve full brightness in microseconds; Philips Lumileds technical datasheet DS23 for the Luxeon Star states "less than 100ns." LEDs used in communications devices can have even faster response times.
* LEDs can be very small and are easily populated onto printed circuit boards.
* LEDs do not contain mercury, unlike compact fluorescent lamps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode

"However, in foreign affairs, diplomacy are signs of weakness and compromise is a total loss. It is better to demonstrate one's resoluteness by attacking and taking what one wants than to be preceived as cowards who can be taken advantage of easily."

Normally, instead of cowards, words like weak horse, or paper tiger are used. Bin Laden seemed to use paper tiger, though I'm sure he as well as Saddam regarded us as cowards. Of course, we generally don't regard such things as hiding in caves or a spider hole, as the behavior of the courageous.
It is doubtful either would done what they did, had they been more knowledgeable.

"It is better to bomb and destroy and be feared than to build a school or hospital and let the other side be seen as winning."

It does appear that the terrorists do hold this view- not that they won't help build a school or hospital or target a school or hospital for a terrorist attack.

"Given those biases, one does not have to follow the phonied rationalizations which is used to justify - they aren't based upon any other logic than selfishness and and a grandiose view of their importance. They are entirely predictable when one used those yardsticks."

There is a lot of bias, and no one is immune to it.
In order to help counter some of it, one needs to be more aware of all sides, and have a preference of facts, over spin.
Even, a knowledgeable scientist can have bias- in matter of politics it is a given- but even in matters of science, and it therefore that is the need of various systems of attempting to check this bias.