But again, you endeavour to attack the man rather than the information presented - says it ALL.So exposing someone's alleged fraudulent behaviour is an unsuitable topic of discussion and I'm smug, yet the accused fraud and the former Australian Senator that partly funds his activities are somehow nice blokes!
Isn't offering an alleged frauds fraudulent report as supporting evidence an issue?
I've already pointed out that scientists do not make claims of certainty, so you post assertions of certitude, obfuscation and avoidance. Publication tactics perfectly copied by climate sceptics from the Tobacco Lobby!
All the presented data represents trends and risks, and it will change over time with improvements in measurement and calibration techniques, it's people like Heller that try to assert that it's immutable and that any hint of change is conspiracy!
There is no subject you can drag into this debate to divert from the real facts, whether it's making false claims about peak science organisations, dragging various religions into the debate or implying that the presented basic math and charted data is merely obfuscation to avoid debating the issues!
Debunk the basic math if you feel it's wrong.