The Bronx Bomber on Global Warming

I sent the new friend of the blog the list of questions Kelly posted in the comments. The only one he responded to was the question about global warming. He sent me, under the subject "anotherw ay libs lie the truth about global warming" this article:

The latest foray into the cause of "global warming" is that the sun is burning brighter than it has in a thousand years:

"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."

Could it be the sun? Is it greenhouse gases? Is it both? Who is to say?

"It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor."...

"The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.

"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."

So I responded.

Way to microscopically excerpt something.

The entire article talks about the science of the
*hypothesis* of the sun's increasing brightness,
something that all stars do, by the way, as they use
their fuel, before they eventually collapse in on
themselves. The part that is boldfaced was written by
David Bellamy, a botanist and conservationist, before
this news of the sun's increasing brightness came out.

The sun is NOT an anthropogenic cause for global
climate change. So how is this research a liberal
plot? Doesn't it bolster the Right's argument that
global climate change is NOT the result of greenhouse
gas emissions?

Now let's talk about the truth.

The global climate is changing, that's not a lie:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm

What's debatable is to what extent anthropogenic
factors are involved. However, if you stop asking
politicians and polemicists and start asking
climatologists (and not botanists), you get this:

"The current scientific consensus is that most of the
warming observed over the last 50 years is
attributable to human activities (see Attribution of
recent climate change) and the extent of this
consensus is discussed at scientific opinion on
climate change.

"Since it is such an important issue, governments need
predictions of future trends in global change so they
can take political decisions to avoid undesired
impacts. Global warming is being studied by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The
IPCC does not commission or carry out research itself,
but rather disseminates the body of published
research. The reports reflect the consensus of the
published science. The 1995 IPCC report concluded that
"The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human
influence on global climate"; this was strengthened in
the 2001 TAR to "There is new and stronger evidence
that most of the warming observed over the last 50
years is attributable to human activities".

"A survey in 1996 by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch
of the Meteorologisches Institut der Universitat
Hamburg generated responses from over 400 German,
American and Canadian climate researchers and was
reported in the United Nations Climate Change
Bulletin. See scientific opinion of global warming for
further discussion of this and other opinion surveys
of scientists. The survey reported the response of
scientists in this field, to the statement that it is
"certain that, without change in human behavior,
global warming will definitely occur sometime in the
future". Scientists polled gave this statement an
average score of 2.6 on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1
indicated complete agreement and 7 indicated complete
disagreement."

Souce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

So tell me, please:

1) Why does the Right continue to generate more
ill-feelings between foreign countries for dropping
out of the Kyoto Treaty?

2) Even if Global Warming is proven without a shadow
of doubt to be a steaming crock of poo, why can't we
still reduce the emission of harmful pollutants?

3) Why does the Right refuses to accept the
overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic climate
change?

Please note that these questions are asked with the
word WHY. Not HOW. I understand HOW you do it. I want
to know WHY.

What's next? Bring it on.

After I sent it, I realized that he was actually trying to say that the research of the sun's increasing brightness is proof that liberals lie. So I've already screwed up in my debate training.

This mistake led to another email from me:

You know, I misread what you meant. You meant to say
that that the research of the sun's increasing
brightness *IS* proof that liberals lie about global
warming. Sorry about my misinterpretation.

See? Apologizing for being wrong. More people should
try that.

Like only offering $15 million dollars to help the
tsunami victions. Increasing it to $350 millions
dollars should have been prefaced with the word
"Sorry." Yet again, Bush ruins an opportunity to
repair relations with the world.

Many of you think that I'm wasting my time on this guy. I'm not as on the up-and-up and as quickwitted with a lot of these issues as many of you are. This guy is my Arguing with Conservatives 101 class. I need this chance to matriculate.