At first I was sympathetic to his point. But then I realized that this is a classic case of picking the metric to push your agenda. What matters is that climate change is causing more severe weather and that weather is causing increasingly more damage and that this whole problem is severe enough to be a national security issue (indeed an international one). It is completely beyond the point that poor people have simultaneously been pushed into areas more prone to weather damage. A sensible person would think that is even more of a reason to combat climate change. A propagandist will twist it to somehow argue that climate change advocacy is "alarmist" and continue ignoring the issue while the real and potential costs keep rising exponentially the more we wait.