There is a case for fossil fuels as the video points out. The realists in the world are making use of more fossil fuels while promising to use less. This is also known as being two faced but look at Germany with its über-green aganda and its plans to construct more coal-fired power stations. Look at China, it has just entered in to a "green" agreement with the US and it can't build the coal-fired power stations fast enough.

At some point you have to realise that governments are not doing what they say. The reason is because fossil fuels are doing more good than harm at the moment.

Because there are many factors involved.

If 50 people die from a heat wave, then 20 years later only 10 people die from a heat wave in the same city, is that necessarily because the second heat wave was less severe than the first? Or could it be because the city, in the intervening 20 years, developed better disaster response protocols and the like, and warned people to take precautions? Or because more people had air conditioning? Or because the hospitals can better recognize and treat heat stress, and/or heat-exacerbated heart problems? And so on. The second heat wave could have been *worse* than the first, but a better-prepared city was able to prevent most of the deaths that would otherwise have been caused.

The same goes for any other natural disaster.

It's not a controlled experiment, as the climate has changed, so have lots of other things in our society. We are generally much better at weather prediction than we used to be, so fewer people die in weather-related disasters that might be connected to climate. Also, those sorts of disasters are statistically rare events,so it's difficult to draw conclusions about just how things are changing.

Technological advancement. Better building techniques and so on.