After researching hurricanes briefly, it would appear as though they are typically effected by water temperatures. This is why they typically dissipate as they approach the cooler waters of the northern seas. Their existence is not often effected very much by atmospheric temperatures at all. Going back in history we can also prove that hurricanes existed far before any of the things global warming is typically blamed on, like SUV's or spray paint. Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia scientist and author of Satanic Gases, has said that Isabel was a very common hurricane in a very light hurricane season. So do hurricanes have anything to do with global warming, if such a thing exists? In my amateur opinion, no.
If we examine global warming itself we are led down a trail of assumptions based on sketchy science. What I have found to be true, however, is that the emmissions of cars and aerosal spray cans are chemicals that have occurred in nature since the begining of time. When Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillipines erupted in 1991 it realeased more so-called greenhouse gasses in months than the human race has since the industrial revolution. I have heard much the same said about the St. Helens eruption.
To say that the climate changes documented by scientists is caused by anything other than earth's natural cycles just doesn't make sense. The problem is that we, as Americans, tend to consume the statistics and research these environmentalists produce because it sounds plausible. The next time you hear one of them, take a step back and look at the big picture. What may be interesting to you is to find out who is signing the environmentalist's pay checks. Is he or she a true scientist or a paid lobbyist.
I'm not advocating a wanton disregard for our planet, but I would like to see some questions asked before we pay billions to fight a condition that may not even exist.