One Guy With A Marker Just Made The Global Warming Debate Completely Obsolete

This fellow seems to be entirely persuaded of his own cleverness and logic. Now while I appreciate his attempt to boil down the climate change debate to a simple chart, his parameters are faulty because he bases them on false assumptions. Therefore, his conclusions are likewise false. For example:

1) He assumes we are doing nothing now. However, we are spending billions if not trillions of dollars on mitigating the effects of climate change. The money is already flowing

2) He assumes that spending this money will solve the problem. But he cannot know if the strategies being utilized at present will have the desired effect, and he cannot know if other technologies will be developed in the future.

3) He assumes that we have the capability to change the environment. This has not been demonstrated.

4) He assumes that the efforts directed at climate change are not posturing. That is, he doesn't know the motives or objectives of the actors are actually intended to improve the ecology of the planet. They might be simply creating methods to financially benefit. They may intend to shift the balance of political power. There is no way of knowing if the powerbrokers of the environmental movement really have genuine concern for the environment and will as such expend their efforts and resources to improving it.

5) He assumes that if we do nothing, bad things will happen. He cannot know this either.

If we were to be honest, we would follow a line of logic that does not presuppose what we intend to prove. Like this:

A) Is climate change happening?
B) If it is, what is causing it?
C) Can we demonstrate that the effects are bad?
D) Is it possible to reverse the effects?
E) What is the best way to achieve this reversal?
F) Is it feasible to do?
G) How will we know if we've succeeded?

There may be other intermediate steps to insert in this flow of logic. I've just hit the highlights. The question is, has anyone asked any of the questions beyond B or perhaps C? Has anyone asked if we can really change the course of the global climate? Has anyone considered that the US government doesn't have the Constitutional power to impose the climate change agenda? Has anyone stopped to ask if it is within our reach financially to achieve this? Has anyone set a goal that will tell us when we have succeeded?

So, this gentleman in the video thinks he has resolved the debate, given us a course of action, and justified any and all government intervention into the economy and peoples' daily lives in the name of saving the planet. Wow, reading that again, he almost sounds delusional, doesn't he?