I'd be happier if you'd thrown in some concession like "I admit data is sometimes bad quality". That wouldn't mean agreeing with your opponent's implicit denial that any warming is happening. Your side doesn't have to be perfect in order to be in the right, and if you claim infallibility it looks less credible, to me. Is it more important to laugh at this guy, than to be scrupulous?

It may spoil an entertaining deliberate confusion, but you know the airports with the jets, and the cities full of immigrants, were clearly stated as separate from the start: "two sources of corruption ... the first ... the second".