Simply coming up with a demonizing label for him (denier) and applying these label as a castigation to anyone who even tries to point out skepticism is not how you should make arguments.

> good friends with the deniers

What does that have to do with anything when he's pointing out with raw data which is provided by science and anybody has the ability to point out what he's doing wrong? If you don't have the ability to point out holes in his data, then I don't think you are acting in good faith.

Also political attacks in a civil debate about science isn't good.

This isn’t a debate about science, this is a political debate about who to trust as you really ought to know if you paid any attention to the climate debate.

It's ironical you think about Heller's work as "political", as one of the arguments he makes is that the climate science field became completely crippled once politicians started to put their nose in it.

It's also a huge problem that once a scientific theory (man-made climate change due to CO2) becomes "mainstream" and labelled as "official", you can't oppose it without immediately having all kinds of people with various interests supporting you for sometimes bad reasons. It's unfortunately inevitable.

Worth reading how Dr James Hansen and senator Timothy Wirth (who's the president of UN for many years now) sabotaged the air conditioner back in 1988 and opened the windows to make things appear worse for the cameras:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/intervi...

I didn't bring in politics, I simply states sources from scientific sources and old newspapers. If anyone can point out what's wrong with it, then I am okay for a debate. The problem is that people have made this into a political debate because there's a lot of money involved in climate change policy making.