His famous TED talk against doing anything about climate change (a position which I think he later rescinded?) and instead focusing those funds on health and poverty reduction instead is littered with it, and based on a false assumption to begin with; that there is a pile of money that is already set aside and we're all in charge of directing it.
The reality is far more complicated. We aren't taking money away from fighting Malaria when we raise taxes on gas guzzling cars, to give just one example.
I just explained that. He misrepresents the data by presenting it as an either or (either we fight climate change OR we fight poverty) when it isn't. That misrepresentation distorts how you interpret all the data in his talk.
I'm not interested in nit picking back and forth. Go defend Rosling to someone else.
The reality is far more complicated. We aren't taking money away from fighting Malaria when we raise taxes on gas guzzling cars, to give just one example.