TL;DR: Some people are making claims that "the world is going to end in twelve years" or something, but it isn't. Lots of stuff about the author's experiences

TL;DR: Some people are making claims that "the world is going to end in twelve years" or something, but it isn't. Lots of stuff about the author's experiences traveling in the Congo even though most of it isn't that relevant to the questions of climate or its effects. We've got other problems the author cares more about than the climate. Human ability to adapt might surpass the effects of the change. A couple of weird and IMO not very good arguments about volcanoes and asteroids being threats to humanity, and of course the coronavirus epidemic which apparently somehow means we should care less about climate change. People are getting depressed and anxious about climate change, so according to the author, we should worry about it less. -- Sorry, but I don't think the article really makes good arguments. Taking someone's claim that the world is ending in twelve years (or something similar), making the obvious observation that that's not true, and thus implying that climate "alarmism" is wrong is pretty much a strawman argument. Pointing out that many natural disasters aren't necessarily a result of climate change (or at least it's hard to tell how much of a connection there is) is valid and potentially valuable. It would be better and easier to take as a non-motivated argument if the general tone of the piece weren't discounting the effects of climate change. And yes, people in the Congo probably are worrying more about their immediate survival and coping than about climate, and factors other than climate change quite possibly have a greater effect on their lives. That doesn't stop climate change from being an issue; it just means that people whose daily life is mostly about survival have other issues that are even more critical to them. The paragraph about other non-climate threats to humanity ("Consider the other threats humankind has recently been forced to cope with. ...") is somehow so absurd and irrelevant that I have no idea why someone putting the thought and effort into writing a lengthy article would include it. Additionally, the article is entirely focused on humanity and doesn't touch on the effects of climate change on other animal life at all. That's a possible value choice to make, but effectively saying that us massively disrupting the ecosystem is fine because we ourselves will somehow be able to manage falls a bit short of a responsible philosophy in my books. The lack of any focus on other life would make it very difficult for me to agree with the article's thesis even if it successfully argued that it were in our best interest to not worry about the climate as much.