Why not address the actual points he is making? He dramatically screwed up his forecasts of both human population growth rate and technological advancement rate.

These underlying assumptions being incorrect are the reason climate alarmist move the goal posts every year.

I think this mostly points to us not taking his opinion seriously on the matter.

Most others in the climate science debate have been far more realistic and measured. Similarly, I tend to ignore everything from David Wallace-Wells, another person who has written a ton on climate but from a very different political perspective, who has also been quite wrong.