[Surtt]

I didn't watch the 2 other videos yet, but his argument seems to have the depth of the "Just say no" campaign. I think his argument is so full of holes, I can't agree with any of it.

First of all he is making the assumption that throwing money* at the problem will make it go away. There seams to be an assumption that the world's climate is stable, it might not be. If we have started global warming, we might be too late to stop it even if we cut our carbon output to zero.

Secondly he is assuming there is a known amount of money "X" that we need to spend to stop it. We have no idea how much we would need to do. What if we spend X dollars and we need to spend X+1 to fix it, we just waisted X dollars. What if we spend 10X, we just threw the would into a depression needlessly. The truth is: there is not 2 columns, but unknown trillions of columns. It is not a simple yes/no question.

I could go on, but I better go watch the other 2 videos first.


Also if he hasn't found anyone who would poke holes in his argument, he needs to stop preaching to the choir.

*I know it is more then just money, but that is the easiest way to explain the economic impact of what we would need to do.