"Not Evil, Just Wrong" is a new documentary that takes on the climate change issue. I tend to disagree with the title of the film. I think that many, if not most, of the people who are pushing for draconian action to limit CO2 emissions are evil as well as wrong. They deliberately distort and mislead the public to try to gain support for their desired program. They also lie about those who disagree with them, and routinely resort to ad hominem attacks. The unwillingness of environmentalists to even consider the use of cost-benefit analyses to shape public policy reveal that they are agenda driven. They typically cite the "precautionary principle" as the reason that cost-benefit analyses are not appropriate. But that is not a reasonable position. Consider the likelihood of a meteorite exploding over some part of the earth. In 1908 that happened over Siberia with the result that several hundred square miles were destroyed. About 13,000 years ago a meteorite exploded over North America wiping out most life over the entire continent. Those were more severe consequences than would result from a temperature increase of even 10 F from an event that is probably more likely than runaway global warming. Then there is the likelihood of an ice age, something that is almost certain to happen within the next several centuries, based on history, and something is is more destructive to civilization than warming. Why don't environmentalists want to apply the precautionary principle to these events that could happen?