Going to be honest, I didn't watch the video. It is inconvenient for me to play long videos with audio on my phone much of the day. But I will say what I usually say about the topic. It is plausible to me that factories, cars etc would have a measurable effect. However, every alarmist prediction with a date earlier than 2015 so far has proven wrong, and there are no obvious, demonstrable real-world symptoms (other than CO2 levels themselves). Ocean levels may be rising, but not rapidly, and it is not accelerating. Data showed no rise, until 2003, when an Asian reporting station showed a 2.3cm rise and that was used to "correct" the global data. Note that these stations work based on the assumption that land and sea floor altitudes never change, when in reality, they do change. But this station overrides satellite data so now we have a 2.3cm rise. The latest projections by climate change experts (conventional wisdom) is that they will rise 4-17 inches by 2100. Is this outside the norm for world history - we aren't sure, it has always fluctuated. Is it a catastrophe - unlikely. Temperatures - same deal. There was no warming for 17 years. Then, climate scientists changed how they calculate it (has to do with weighting of ocean surface sensors), now there has been warming. Which is real? I don't know? In practical human terms, there is no difference. Does anyone see a problem in not once but twice, reweighing and recalculating to get the results you want? More wildfires - Forbes says there were more in 1950. More drought - Nature magazine says the global rate is unchanged in 60 years. More severe weather - it has been 10 years (longest in recorded history) since a major hurricane made landfall on the continental U.S. In 2001, a climate scientist said that "in a few years," snow would be a rare and exciting event in the UK. Snows have actually been heavier in the UK and North America the past few years - so now, that is evidence of climate change. Less snow, global warming, more snow, global warming. Awesome theory, any outcome proves it right. In 1990, a lead climate scientist said that by 1995, massive droughts would create famines, and dust from dried farmlands would strip paint from houses and destroy computers. In 1988, a lead climate scientist said that in 20-30 years (2008-2018), Manhattan would be partially submerged and high winds would force residents to tape up their apartment windows. In 2009, Al Gore said the North Pole would be ice-free in the summer by 2013. These examples are not fringe claims by fringe people. They were widely reported, and most of the people making the claims were among the top names in climate change. I am not saying there is NOTHING to this. It makes sense to me that factories and cars will cause some warming, and that warming will have some effect. But we clearly do not fully understand either the specific effects or the scale. The "science is settled" crowd acts like this is as clear as gravity. If it is so clear, why are experts so completely wrong so often - pretty much every time a claim is testable? During Vietnam, LBJ's cabinet worried Americans might not understand the geopolitical reasons the U.S. was fighting in Vietnam. They decided they needed to give a reason that was "clearer than the truth" to get support. I think that phrase is from McNamara but not positive. Anyway - I think what is going on, in part, is that climate scientists think this will be a big problem in 200-400 years if we don't act now (I find this very believable), but they think the public will act only if they think they, their kids or grandkids will be seriously harmed. So they make doomsday predictions to try to get people focused, and get stuck with them when the predicted date comes and goes, when they should have been honest the whole time. Or if they aren't lying, they don't know what they are talking about ... It is one or the other with each of those statements. Dust bowl in 1995 - lie, or evidence they are clueless? Manhattan underwater by 2008 - lie, or evidence they are clueless? Either way, why believe any of their other predictions? If you told me "CO2 buildup will eventually cause problems, we should address it," I would say yeah, makes sense. But if you tell me the above stuff, Manhattan partially submerged in 2008, North Pole ice-free in the summer by 2013, dust bowl conditions by 1995, no snow in Scotland "a few years" after 2001, I freak out, make fixing this an important part of my life, and the predicted date passes with nothing happening - not even a limited taste, nothing - I start to tune you out. I never thought I would say this, but I trust politicians more than "climate scientists" at this point.