I watched that section for a few minutes and saw nothing remarkable in anything he said. Are you really sure you aren't the kind of person he's criticizing? A summary of his comments would be:

1. Claims are over the top. There have been so many wrong claims of apocalypse that it's now really hard to get people's attention. "Most of you barely looked up from your phones at the prospect of non-survival - it's become so hyperbolic that nobody really knows how to get anyone's attention at all". He compares to the claims of gold bugs and about Y2K.

2. Climate activists generate far too much banking work given the time frames and nearer term problems. "We've got the China problem, a housing crisis looming, interest rates climbing, an inflation crisis, and I'm being told time and time again to spend time looking at something that's going to happen twenty or thirty years hence. The proportionality is out of whack".

3. At the moment, markets agree with him more or less. The more often the phrase "climate catastrophe" is mentioned in the press, the more valuable risk-associated assets become.

In other words he feels like bankers have nearer term job related problems to be thinking about like the cost of living crisis, the lockdown induced recessions, and not claims the world is ending which, historically, have proven to be inaccurate as a general class.

If you feel like these views justify firing or suspending people then you're the sort of person he's criticizing.

Edit: Here's a summary of the rest of his arguments.

1. People claiming the world is going to end need to either present arguments for why the market is mispricing everything despite millions of participants, or, why there's going to be a massive boom if climate risk is 'solved'. But currently they don't do that, they're implicitly arguing that the market is seriously mispriced, without actually stating so directly.

2. IPCC figures for actual impact of climate change are surprisingly low, on the order of 5% by 2100. However even if you accept those figures, by 2100 the economy may easily be 1000% larger, so a 5% difference would not be noticeable. Also GDP growth is perhaps over-rated in terms of importance: growth has completely stopped in the recent past and it was OK.

3. People often make misleading claims about extreme weather increasing, without noting that weather related deaths and costs have all been trending downwards significantly. Thus not only dry financial/economic metrics seem impacted in only low ways, but also 'lifestyle' metrics. Humans have been pretty fantastic at adaptation and there's no reason to assume this will change.

4. "I don't doubt the science at all". California's fire budget is only 1% of their state budget, or .1% of their GDP. If economic growth continues as expected, even with more fires, that is solvable through adaption.

5. We spend way too much on mitigation financing and not enough on adaptation financing.

6. There's a difference between volumes and prices (this seems like a technical financial argument), e.g. revenues can fall without profits/prices changing because there's an indirect relationship. There will be winners and losers whose share prices go up and down, during green transitions there's going to be both and it's possible to build portfolios around both. E.g. at the moment coal indexes are outperforming renewables, but it's been different in the past and things will swing back and forth.

7. "Even if climate risk isn't negligible it's too far in the future to matter for most companies". This is again a technical point related to the priorities of bankers. He says company valuations don't really go beyond 20 years. Avg loan length is 6 years. Even if you assume the "Sharons and the Mark Carneys" of the world are totally right about everything and the world ends in fire and destruction in 30 years (not sure who Sharon is but seems to be a prior presenter), then from the perspective of a banker it doesn't matter because it's still too far in the future to actually be important for day to day financial activities.

8. He criticizes central banks for spending far too much time on climate risk instead of things they're meant to be thinking about like inflation and asset prices.

9. One climate risk that markets may not be pricing is the possibility of a giant unexpected carbon tax. Many claims by central banks about climate risk being high, are in reality when you check the fine print of the models, actually modelling implausible economic growth dynamics and massive interest rate shocks, which they then present as "climate risk" to make headlines. This isn't reported and he feels central banks are manipulating models in order to make headlines.

10. If we'd tried to model climate risk in the 1920s with today's knowledge of climate science, they'd have got it totally wrong as they'd never have predicted deindustrialization, the impact of greener technology etc.

11. Conclusion, summary of argument: humans are extremely good at managing change. We need to be less doom-mongering and re-focus / re-gain perspective on what investment bankers should be focused on. We need to not be caught out by opportunities like Tesla, and there's lots of investment opportunities in the green transition.

Overall his talk is not even debating or doubting climatological sciences or predictions at any point. It is mostly about what bankers should be doing with their time.