Because you’re presenting on the wrong subject; looking at what the titles of his papers were, would have told you what you should have been investigating here, and didn’t bother to.
It’s not whether his environmental science is right; it’s whether he’s right about the effect of draconian anti-hydrocarbons policies would have on people vis-à-vis substituting green sources immediately.
And he’s completely ******** right. You would kill people, or let them starve, if you did this.
He’s also right on the out-sized priority Global Warming receives vs the effects, and he’s right that the Paris protocol is a waste, next to simply investing in new energy tech.
What Bjorn represents, is the recognition that Climate Data, doesn’t tell us what the best approach is to save human lives, both in the immediate and long term. Because that determination is dependent on things far afield of just environmental science; now you’re talking about sociology, and the effects of energy poverty.
I don’t need him to be one. I just need him to be capable of plotting a cost curve, and contrasting the human death toll from things such as in-home air pollution vs extreme weather.
Basically everything he says here, is correct, but if you think you can find a fault, be my guest.