I turned it off after his third logical fallacy. The one that’s easiest to point out is the following:

Because human production of CO2 is minuscule in comparison to naturally occurring CO2, we are not responsible for global warming.

Put the donut down, Steve, and step away from the counter.

I think that’s a formal fallacy called a non-sequitur, that is, the statement conclusion does not logically follow the premise.

Steve is either very ignorant or very dishonest. Since he leads with his numerous academic achievements, I’m going to suggest he is being dishonest, but for the sake of the ignorant, I will explain why he is oh so wrong.

In this case the premise is correct, human activity is minimal compared to natural sources of CO2, but it does not absolve humanity or human activity as the culprit in our current predicament.

That donut you just put in your pie hole doesn’t represent the bulk of your daily caloric intake either, Steve. In fact, it’s just an eighth of the average daily caloric requirement. But if you go over that, by eating that donut, Steve, consuming 250-300 calories or so extra from what would be your normal weight maintaining diet, you’re going to get fat, Steve.

It’s not nature, Steve. You ate that donut.

In a year, one might gain 20 pounds. A steady weight the year previously, is upended when calories consumed exceeds calories expended. It didn’t just happen. That human-made, not naturally occurring donut made of (carbon) upset the balance and made you fat.

You got fat, Steve, because you ate a donut every day.

His other points are equally egregiously wrong, especially the warming for 400 years one. Again, he’s deliberately deceiving the public. He doesn’t believe this stuff; there’s no way anybody could be that stupid.