How widely held is UBL-global warming information operation of 2004 theory?
Stealing from the famous George Packer article to summarize it:
Just before the 2004 American elections, Kilcullen was doing intelligence work for the Australian government, sifting through Osama bin Laden's public statements, including transcripts of a video that offered a list of grievances against America: Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, global warming. The last item brought Kilcullen up short. "I thought, Hang on! What kind of jihadist are you?" he recalled. The odd inclusion of environmentalist rhetoric, he said, made clear that "this wasn't a list of genuine grievances. This was an Al Qaeda information strategy." Ron Suskind, in his book "The One Percent Doctrine," claims that analysts at the C.I.A. watched a similar video, released in 2004, and concluded that "bin Laden's message was clearly designed to assist the President's reelection." Bin Laden shrewdly created an implicit association between Al Qaeda and the Democratic Party, for he had come to feel that Bush's strategy in the war on terror was sustaining his own global importance.
(Packer, 12/18/06)
If so, in his latest screed he hits on global warming again. He also points out the flaccid opposition re: Iraq by the Democrats. And possibly endorses (theoretically tainting from the US political discourse) contrarian, non-interventionist thinking:

And among the most capable of those from your own side who speak to you on this topic and on the manufacturing of public opinion is Noam Chomsky, who spoke sober words of advice prior to the war…
And if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing of your war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer in this regard.
What gives? Am I reading this right or reading too much into it? Off-track or on target?


------------------
Packer, George, "Knowing The Enemy: Can social scientists redefine the "war on terror"?". The New Yorker, Vol. 82 No. 42. (December 18, 2006)