We all know Mark Twain's opinion of statistics. I see climate...

We all know Mark Twain's opinion of statistics.
I see climate change as a question of science - disprove the science and you can disprove the hypothesis.
Does CO2 trap heat?
There are a few of Moore's statements which need to be run through a fact checker:
65 million years ago humans went through 16 times more CO2.
Wiki tells me homo erectus is only 1.8 million this year.
More ice than ever - possibly superficially, but antarctic is melting from below.

Much of his argument is based on a straw man - he quoted a paper which said that warming for the last 50 years is predominantly human induced and extrapolated from this to assert that that they said that humans did not cause earlier heating. To be fair, the clip is 4 years old, and a week is a long time in global science.

Selecting sequences of statistics can mask trends. NASA's figures on temperature increase in the post-war period, temperature decreased, breaking a trend from 1910.
The trend was flat until the late 70s. It increased after we abandoned Bretton Woods - conclusion war is good for climate, free market economics is bad for climate.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/DecadalTemp

More renewable energy is being used than Moore suggested, so the EV will have less environmental impact - so we need more rare earth metals. (I put this in so I won't get moderated for irrelevance.)