I asked if you had watched the video because you didn't raise any specific objections to the evidence provided. I'm not going to restate everything said in the video, but if there's something specific you disagreed with, we could talk about it in more detail.

I assume that by "slow burn," you mean to say that climate change takes place on a time scale that goes beyond just one or two decades. If that's true, then how can we possibly judge the accuracy of the newer "hot" models except by looking at how well they predict past climate data? And by that metric, some of them do just as well as the older, less "hot" models that we've been basing climate policy on for decades. Is there some other metric you're using to dismiss the new models? I hope it's clear why I think you're contradicting yourself, but maybe you have some other way of telling whether a climate model is accurate.

I think there is some validity to what you say about risk assessment, and I have the general feeling that there is some real hysteria among younger generations w.r.t. climate change. There may be more pressing issues, but again, if it is the case that we can expect to see much hotter temperatures than previously predicted, then everyone, regardless of wealth or location, should be concerned for their own wellbeing in the near future.