This is a trailer for the documentary Not Evil Just Wrong.

The film argues that the science behind climate change science is not settled. Not Evil Just Wrong
focuses on the British High Court ruling which found nine errors in Al Gore's documentary,
An Inconvenient Truth. The film also highlights assertions about the Medieval Warm Period and
Stephen McIntyre's alleged debunking of the hockey stick graph.[7][8]

The film also focuses on the impact of climate legislation in developing counties and average families
in America. The film states that one of environmentalists' first restrictions on industry was when DDT
was banned, led by Rachel Carson.[9] According to the film, the ban on DDT "...has needlessly resulted
in the deaths of more than 40 million children and adults in the developing world."[10].[11]

The film then continues to on a similar tack, arguing that climate legislation like cap and trade would
negatively impact the life for middle and low-income families in America,particularly those working for
energy-related jobs. The directors follow Tiffany McElhany and her family in rural Indiana, to see how
fossil fuels have given them better opportunities.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Evil_Just_Wrong

The film was shown on Amazon Prime as not available.   

Here's one of the Directors giving a speech.  One word:  decaf  :

in b4 omimpotent one starts spouting the same shit he's been posting for 3-5 years on this forum...

Imagine supporting DDT

Imagine supporting DDT

Imagine killing 3 billion people with a ban based on incomplete science.

This 2010 documentary is by a REAL DOCTOR, too.  Listen to the EXPERTS.

3 Billion & Counting: The Cost Of Banning DDT

3 Billion and Counting is a new documentary film on the awful human cost of banning DDT.
The film’s producer, medical doctor Rutledge Taylor, circled the tropical world, finding that
malaria has claimed some three billion human lives throughout history–and the toll of needless
deaths is continuing to mount by perhaps 1.5 million per year. Moreover, it permanently
debilitates millions more. Taylor says malaria treatment is a “tangle of red tape, misguided
prevention policies and treatment that is ineffective in the face of continual re-infection.”
Above all, he found “willful deafness to the pleas of local populations to help them eradicate
the mosquitoes that deliver the deadly cargo.”

Rachel Carson ignited the environmental movement when her book Silent Spring warned the
world in 1962 that “DDT would be proven to be a [human] carcinogen.” In fact, no peer-reviewed
evidence ever indicted DDT as a carcinogen–or a human health risk of any sort.

Rutledge Taylor traces the horrific DDT mistake back to one man: William Ruckelshaus, the
Nixon-appointed lawyer who headed the EPA in 1972. An EPA judge heard more than 100 expert
witnesses, and ruled that DDT was not a carcinogen, nor did it pose a threat to mammals, fish or
birds. Ruckelshaus overruled his own judge, and banned DDT. He had attended none of the hearing,
and admitted later he’d never read any of the transcript. Dr. Taylor concludes he did it to please his
friends in the Environmental Defense Fund.

The American DDT ban triggered similar bans across the First World–and with it, their refusal to
fund its use in poor countries. Malaria resurged all over the tropics. Rachel Carson, and Ruckelshaus
were the indirect cause of more deaths than Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Genghis Khan combined. You can
even throw in the Black Plague and still not match the numbers.

DDT is not only the most cost-effective mosquito killer, it is also a powerful mosquito repellent. If tropic
homes get a mild interior DDT whitewash, the insects don’t come in, bite somebody, and then die two
hours later. They just don’t come in! DDT is, by itself, capable of reducing a malaria outbreak by
80 percent–quickly.

https://rightwingnews.com/environment/3-billion-counting-the-cost-of-banning-ddt/

I think the title is a good one. These things get politicized for various reasons and then people start demonizing each other.
People need to refrain from the emotion and the politics. It is easy for lay people to misunderstand the science or even be mislead by someone else presenting it to us.

People who believe in climate change don't believe in it just because they all have stock in solar panel companies, and people who have issues with climate change aren't all big oil company spokespeople.

And sometimes scientists are wrong for any number of reasons, most of the time with no ill intent.

I think the title is a good one. These things get politicized for various reasons and then people start demonizing each other.
People need to refrain from the emotion and the politics. It is easy for lay people to misunderstand the science or even be mislead by someone else presenting it to us.

People who believe in climate change don't believe in it just because they all have stock in solar panel companies, and people who have issues with climate change aren't all big oil company spokespeople.

And sometimes scientists are wrong for any number of reasons, most of the time with no ill intent.

And when the people who are wrong get called out they lie, spin, obfuscate, deflect and attack the accusers as science deniers. 

Maybe they thought they had good intentions, but that doesn't compensate for bad or fraudulent "science".

Imagine killing 3 billion people with a ban based on incomplete science.

This 2010 documentary is by a REAL DOCTOR, too.  Listen to the EXPERTS.

3 Billion & Counting: The Cost Of Banning DDT

https://rightwingnews.com/environment/3-billion-counting-the-cost-of-banning-ddt/

There were a number of studies on DDT, it wasn't just one person's claims. Some of the studies produced conflicting results. There also appears to be quite a bit of other side effects as well.

But of course this clearly is a double edged sword, benefits of keeping DDT or with banning it both came with costs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

And when the people who are wrong get called out they lie, spin, obfuscate, deflect and attack the accusers as science deniers. 

Maybe they thought they had good intentions, but that doesn't compensate for bad or fraudulent "science".

I think the term lie is overused here. People love to say the other side lied just because they said something incorrect or conflicting. And yes, you are right the people on the left hurt the chances at open discussion when they make moral judgements, insults, etc. I have noticed people on the right are guilty of similar negative tactics as well though.

I think the term lie is overused here. People love to say the other side lied just because they said something incorrect or conflicting. And yes, you are right the people on the left hurt the chances at open discussion when they make moral judgements, insults, etc. I have noticed people on the right are guilty of similar negative tactics as well though.

Nope.  Climate Change/Global Warming "Scientists" LIED about the data they used until a whistleblower outed them. 

Cherry-picking data for something this big is not a mistake.  It's a major LIE.

Exposed: How world leaders were duped
into investing billions over manipulated global warming
data

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational
but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack O
bama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the 'pause' or 'slowdown' in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed
by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than
scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world's
media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown
The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, 'unverified' data.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

The US is on the bottom end of polution. Why dont all these climate change barkers talk more about and to the countries that are on the high pollution end? Like china, vietnam, india, cambodia,etc...

Cause theyre idiots.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The US is on the bottom end of polution. Why dont all these climate change barkers talk more about and to the countries that are on the high pollution end? Like china, vietnam, india, cambodia,etc...

Cause theyre idiots.

That's an underlying cause.  The real reason is they only know what Liberal teachers and the media teach them. 

I had a CC discussion with one of my bosses in CA on a conference call before the others dialed in.  After I obviously had more facts than he did on my side, he wound up saying the normal emotional plea they all say:  "Yes. The science MIGHT be wrong.  But what if it's NOT?  Shouldn't we err on the side of caution?" 

Luckily someone else connected.  All I said was, "Then the benefit won't be worth the damage it'll cause to economies all around the world, especially the US who already does more for lower emissions than any other country."

It's far easier to fool someone than to convince them they've been fooled. 

The "err on the side of caution" was stolen from Christians.  "Yes, we can't prove there is a God, but what if you're wrong?"

Imagine killing 3 billion people with a ban based on incomplete science.

This 2010 documentary is by a REAL DOCTOR, too.  Listen to the EXPERTS.

3 Billion & Counting: The Cost Of Banning DDT

https://rightwingnews.com/environment/3-billion-counting-the-cost-of-banning-ddt/

Exactly good point! Imagine caring more about nature than human beings.

Exactly good point! Imagine caring more about nature than human beings.

Nature > humans

To a point....Without nature all humans die vs some humans
Also if you poison nature you poison humans....

The US is on the bottom end of polution. Why dont all these climate change barkers talk more about and to the countries that are on the high pollution end? Like china, vietnam, india, cambodia,etc...

Cause theyre idiots.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Not the attitude that helps.  We must be an example, or if anything help on our own for our own sake and try and convince others.  Just not caring because others don't care doesn't solve a thing.

Nature > humans

To a point....Without nature all humans die vs some humans
Also if you poison nature you poison humans....

I’m glad you care more about nature than humans. You don’t care that 50 million Africans died because DDT was outlawed there because of your feelings being more important than humans. You are such a good person.

I’m glad you care more about nature than humans. You don’t care that 50 million Africans died because DDT was outlawed there because of your feelings being more important than humans. You are such a good person.

How many people would die if DDT poisoned the lands beyond repair? 

How many people would die if DDT poisoned the lands beyond repair?

You are such a good person to make things up. 

You are such a good person to make things up. 

Not really.  DDT is a poison.  With longterm effects.

And those who ingest those poisons?  How many would die?  I figure far more than 50million people.

Exactly good point! Imagine caring more about nature than human beings.

And I’m so happy that you butted your noise into my conversation with Flapp. It just enriches my day when you interrupt my conversations and are rude. You are the greatest person on the planet.