1. You don't understand the definition of argumentum ad hominem.
2. You also don't really understand the concept of the null hypothesis. Given that the physical properties of CO2 (in particular its ability to absorb thermal infrared) have been understood for more than 1 1/2 centuries, I would argue that the null hypothesis is that elevated CO2 concentrations will do exactly what fundamental physics says they will.
3. I've already told you: I'm not playing your game. You've given precisely zero substantive input to this thread, so why should I be inclined to go running around on your command?
