I know that video. The thing is, when you get to this point, it should've been pretty clear for any honest scientists that you shouldn't trust the narrative / story, you should do the full calculation, and be honest about how trustworthy the calculation is.

The picture presented is as if the story is already enough (it definitely isn't), and the shortcomings of the calculations are not important, while the truth is that the story was heavily biased, and the calculations are very important. And the calculations really are dumpster fire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth was funded by the Charles A. Koch Foundation, which hoped to get a contrarian result backed by real science. The study lead was a climate science skeptic at the time. It reached the same conclusion as everyone else.

Decades earlier, ExxonMobil spent millions to do its own science and came to the same conclusion. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...

It's not hard to do the science. It's hard to be truthful about the results when they affect your bottom line.