Look at Gilbert's explanation. Then pick one of the following.
a) I don't understand what he is saying. I think it has calculus in it.
b) It makes perfect sense. It handily disproves all that IPCC hooey. I think it should be spread far and wide.
c) Neither a nor b.
I have some advice for you.
If (a) your problem is not one of logic but one of trust. You cannot figure this out for yourself and you need to figure out based on social reasoning who is telling you the truth and who is lying. This applies to many other technical matters besides climate change. You should read the book "What's the Worst That Could Happen?" by Greg Craven which is a very sane piece of advice for people in this position. After all, most people in democratic societies are in this position, and it's crucial to make the right decision even though you don;t really understand the arguments.
If (b) you overestimate your competence. Your confidence in conclusions matching your political beliefs is dominating your reason. You should be in group (a) but you overestimate your own abilities so you should try being irresponsible for a few years. You should take up less intellectually demanding hobbies and work on improving your personality.
If (c) stick around.
Debunking Gilbert's little undergraduate ploy is left as an exercise for the reader.
That people hold themselves in such esteem and the earth sciences in such contempt that they think things are so stupidly off-base is not remarkable. There are a lot of people in the world.
What is amazing is that someone whose full time job is to discuss these matters would see fit to promote it. It's another example of the extreme cynicism and contempt for reason that is so common nowadays. Morano probably has no idea that there is anything wrong with propagating this nonsense.