Probably because he cites a lot of stats that might be true, but then couches it in bits the viewer may recognise as misleading.
His attacks on YouTubers for example included Kurzgesagt (which he's used as a punching bag before with some rather shallow accusations) where he suggests that they promote carbon capture. If you watch the actual video though, while it does mention CCS as an option, it's quickly followed by a great deal of caution about how technology won't save us.
The clip with Mark Rober and Bill Gates is another one. That video was about meat-free food, something that I would think this guy would support, but he framed it with voiceover and dark music like it's all a conspiracy to make you complacent while the Big Bad Rich Assholes eat your brain.
I agree with the premise, but I won't reshare poorly-researched propaganda.
Probably because it's obvious.
I use to be a Techo-Optimist 2 years ago. It used to look like they where the only or at least the most successful choice. But after a 2 hour critique video I realized how much I didn't know. The problem wasn't that I didn't think, it was that I didn't bother researching beyond a kurzgezugt video. Today I'm trying my best to back my opinions with research but I don't know how to do that or where should I be looking for truthful answers
Generally, people who make proper critiques of liberal holy cows like Bill "Sugar Daddy To The Public Relations Industry" Gates and their colonialist bullshittery tend not get a lot of traction except among the leftist parts of YT.
