I disagree. I'll take this sentence:

> When all is said and done, a massive eruption at Yellowstone, or any other caldera for that matter, isn’t a question we should answer by trying to stop it. Instead, we need to build resilience into our society to survive after such an event.

Why? This doesn't make much sense to me. Seems much better to prevent a giant catastrophe from happening in the first place than trying to pick up the pieces when it's done (an ounce of prevention and all that).

Furthermore, his arguments get totally hand-wavy when it comes to whether a power plant could remove heat fast enough to prevent an eruption. At the end of the day, all you need is a higher wattage out than in, and I see no reason that would be impossible.

Infinitely more things than yellowstone can go wrong

I don't know what your definition of infinite is but that doesn't sound right at all, and further your argument applies equally to all existential risks, so it doesn't really tell you that you shouldn't work on this particular one.

"Instead, we need to build resilience into our society" is the key here, many many things can happen.

Building resilience instead of preventing a catastrophe sounds like a false dichotomy.

A mark of a resilient society could be the ability and will to (1) predict the development of events and sense probable future catastrophes long in advance, and to (2) invest into preventive measures that would show effectiveness many lifetimes later.

Concrete actions might range from cooling down volcanoes like per TFA, to colonizing other worlds, to systematic construction and maintenance of contingency infrastructure, to deliberate collective mindset shifts.

Perhaps what we both can agree on is that it’s this long-term consciousness that we (as humanity) may be lacking.

Societal resilience doesn't protect much against the massive widespread death and suffering that can happen. Preventing a Yellowstone eruption does.

It's just a different objective, although they overlap.