OK, I read it. Was it supposed to be convincing in some way? To be convincing, I would want a rational argument based on observable evidence, but what this gave was emotional rhetoric from politicians. I don't doubt his sincerity, only the basis for his argument. I am not convinced by rhetoric, nor swayed by propaganda, and 'climate change denier' is propaganda intended to silence any discussion of the current dogma. That is not science, that is politics. He is right to be emotional about the destruction caused by this typhoon, and right to want to take steps to prevent it happening again. But taking steps in the wrong direction helps nobody, so we should always look at the facts, and not emotional appeals.
And what are those facts? Well, we are not experiencing an increase in 'extreme weather' events. The Atlantic hurricane season has finished and been remarkably quiet, and ditto the tornado season. The Pacific typhoon season has been about average, higher side for tropical storms, low side for typhoon and super typhoons. Unfortunately, one of them made landfall in a bad place, and caused great destruction, but that doesn't change the picture.
Temperatures haven't increased now for at least 17 years, even though CO2 levels have gone up faster than was being predicted in the '90s. It was warmer in the previous interglacial (the Eemian), warmer in the Holocene Climactic Optimum, and progressively cooler in each succeeding warm period (the Minoan, the Roman, the Mediaval, and the Modern). From the geological evidence, it appears that CO2 has a fairly small effect, and of course is logarithmic.
Now let's consider the central argument itself. CO2 was predicted to have a climate sensitivity of around 1 deg per doubling (hence logarithmic). Nobody cares about that, because everybody agrees that it is net beneficial up to 2 degrees. The scare was that there was a positive feedback effect on water vapour, a much more common and powerful greenhouse gas. Well, is there? Water vapour levels have been monitored, and in fact it is not increasing. Without that, there is no concern from CO2. That doesn't mean the climate isn't changing, it has always changed (hence the stupidity of the 'climate change denier' meme, since the only denier I can think of is Michael Mann, who tried to get rid of the MWP). We know that CO2 levels were around 17x higher at the start of the Carboniferous/Permian ice age, yet it certainly didn't stop it. A reasonable conclusion is that CO2 may have an effect on temperature, but the feedbacks are negative so it isn't much.
My main concern is that the climate will get colder. Two of the three main natural forcings have now gone negative (all three were positive during the period when temperatures were increasing, 1980-1998). That is solar activity and the PDO. The AMO will go negative around 2018, which has a much bigger affect on us in Europe. Cold is much more harmful than warmth. But then again, since we don't know what made us come out of the Little Ice Age, we don't know if whatever caused it has finished yet, so it may get warmer again for a while. We just don't know at this stage.