Not Evil Just Wrong

[Sinatra]

If you are interested in the other side of the ongoing climate debate, you would do well to check out this film...


Sound Politics: Not Evil Just Wrong debuts Sunday at 5 PM

October 18, 2009
Not Evil Just Wrong debuts Sunday at 5 PM
Al Gore received a Nobel Prize and an Oscar for claiming in his film "An Inconvenient Truth" that humans cause global warming. Today, because of this film, school children fear that polar bears are drowning and they and their parents will be next. And extreme "cap-and-trade" legislation Gore could only dream about a decade ago is now pending approval in the U.S. Senate, estimated to cost billions of dollars, mortgaging the futures of those same children before they've earned their first paycheck.

In Not Evil Just Wrong two Irish filmmakers take on Al Gore and the blind acceptance of his doomsday agenda.

Over 3 years in the making with a budget of over $1million, this explosive documentary exposes the distortions and hypocrisy of Gore and the global warming "industry." It explains the true costs of environmental policies like "cap-and-trade" now before Congress.

Today over 31,000 scientists are saying Al Gore is wrong. That CO2 has little effect on planetary temperatures, and there is no climate crisis. But Not Evil Just Wrong is the film that explains it all and will decisively change the public's mind about global warming. A film that will change history.

Washington Policy Center is hosting the debut in Washington. They have showings at most of the state four-year colleges and some private ones. See their site for their detailed schedule.
____


Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Interview: ‘Not Evil Just Wrong’s’ Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHMOEVRysWE&feature=related]YouTube - NOT EVIL JUST WRONG[/ame]

 

[Sinatra]

Brief review of the documentary...
___


Inconvenient Truths Surface in ‘Not Evil Just Wrong’by Darin Miller


“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Former vice president Al Gore uses this Upton Sinclair quote in his 2006 Oscar-winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” when describing politicians and businessmen who oppose his belief that the world is in trouble—big trouble—due to the increasing threat of global warming. But a just-released film is reversing the role.

Irish directors Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney have brought Gore’s controversial picture back under critical focus in their new documentary, “Not Evil Just Wrong,” which addresses the science and language of Al Gore and other environmentalists who see global warming as a major problem. Nearly 10,000 people in 22 countries simultaneously watched the film as it was streamed online via USTREAM (28,000 tuned in at different times), as well as almost 8,000 screenings across the U.S., all of which started at 8 p.m. EST. yesterday, October 18.

This isn’t the first time “An Inconvenient Truth” has been critically studied. When the British government planned to send the DVD to 3,500 secondary schools in 2007, volunteer school governor Stewart Dimmock challenged the decision, believing it is inaccurate and biased. Just over two years ago (Oct. 11), British High Court Judge Michael Burton found nine significant errors in the film, and ruled that it could be shown in schools only if accompanied by guidance to counter its one-sided views. Without this guidance, showing the film would have been breaking the law. While Gore himself claimed he won the case, Judge Burton disagreed, saying, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of … the 1996 Education Act.”

“Not Evil Just Wrong” picks up where the High Court left off, picking apart both Gore’s film and the environmental movement through case studies and in-depth interviews. It addresses the economic and societal impacts of environmental regulations, as well as the scientific truth behind today’s environmental hype. Key components included a study of DDT, a chemical that kills mosquitoes. It helped end malaria epidemics in many countries, and was once widely used in the United States until environmentalists convinced governments around the world that it caused cancer and was harmful to wildlife. Because of this DDT was banned. Without DDT, malaria-carrying mosquitoes have thrived in third-world countries, especially in Africa, and have killed millions. But in 2006 the World Health Organization removed its ban on DDT after beliefs about its negative affects were disproven.

The film also revealed that the “hockey stick” global warming graph, which was cited in “An Inconvenient Truth” as evidence of global warming, was in fact incorrect since its compiler Michael Mann used flawed mathematics to reach his end result. Its underlying mathematics was flawed. The film cites a warm period during the Middle Ages and the 1930s as exceptionally hot periods.

Gore himself declined to be interviewed for the film, but McAleer was able to pose a question to Gore at the Society of Environmental Journalism’s 2009 conference in Madison, Wisconsin, giving his film a burst of publicity just before its release. They briefly sparred after McAleer asked Gore whether he accepted the British High Court’s ruling that there were nine significant errors in the film and what he’d done to correct the errors. Gore evaded the question and the two locked horns over one issue: the number of polar bears alive today. This is probably the worst of the nine errors to fight over, since neither side can say with certainty how many polar bears there are. Terence P. Jeffrey, an editor at large for Human Events, wrote in May of last year that there is really no evidence to base numbers on other than estimation.

On the whole, the film excellently uncovered the facts about Gore’s campaign, though when the lights came up, I for one would have liked to know more. In that vein Andrew Breitbart plans to help the filmmakers launch “Big Environmentalism” as a platform for environmental truth. McElhinney announced the decision at the panel discussion after the Washington, D.C. film premiere.
----


Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Inconvenient Truths Surface in ‘Not Evil Just Wrong’

 

[RodISHI]

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/pdf/document/ATHENS 10.pdf

 

[Sinatra]

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/pdf/document/ATHENS 10.pdf

????

 

[RodISHI]

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/pdf/document/ATHENS 10.pdf

????

The great carbon credit con...It is an article in pdf format.

google search; who is pushing carbon credits

 

[Sinatra]

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/pdf/document/ATHENS 10.pdf

????

The great carbon credit con...It is an article in pdf format.

Was unable to open it...

 

[Mr. H.]

I'd say I owe those Irishmen a beer, but they'd probably drink me out of house and home.

 

[RodISHI]

????

The great carbon credit con...It is an article in pdf format.

Was unable to open it...

Do the google search, who is pushing carbon credits. Ninth down on the page. Sorry it did not link well.

Page 1
Regulation vs. Corruption or Regulation as Corruption?
The Case of Carbon Offsets
Larry Lohmann
Introduction
When a particular commodity market cannot be regulated, the attempt to regulate it
can do no more than create an illusion of regulatability. Deflected into a cul de sac,
official action to correct abuses sustains the underlying problems, or makes them
worse. Regulatory acts become a danger to society. Governance becomes a part of
corruption. All this happens regardless of the good intentions of regulators or anti-
corruption fighters.
The economic crash of 2007-08 presents a clear example. The complex new credit
derivatives at the heart of the crisis were unregulatable. Instead of reducing or
spreading risk, they amplified it and hid it.
1
Because the risk measurement models
used by both companies and regulators gave the illusion that everything was under
control, they made things worse. “Giving someone the wrong map is worse than
giving them no map at all,” the options trader and risk expert Nassim Nicholas Taleb
pointed out.
2
US and UK officials, clinging to the dogma that regulation could handle
any surprises thrown up by the explosive financial innovations of the 1990s and 2000s
(or that the innovations regulated themselves), refused to consider the possibility that
certain kinds of product, and certain kinds of market, were simply too dangerous to be
allowed to exist.

More at the link....

 

[Sinatra]

The great carbon credit con...It is an article in pdf format.

Was unable to open it...

Do the google search, who is pushing carbon credits. Ninth down on the page. Sorry it did not link well.

Page 1
Regulation vs. Corruption or Regulation as Corruption?
The Case of Carbon Offsets
Larry Lohmann
Introduction
When a particular commodity market cannot be regulated, the attempt to regulate it
can do no more than create an illusion of regulatability. Deflected into a cul de sac,
official action to correct abuses sustains the underlying problems, or makes them
worse. Regulatory acts become a danger to society. Governance becomes a part of
corruption. All this happens regardless of the good intentions of regulators or anti-
corruption fighters.
The economic crash of 2007-08 presents a clear example. The complex new credit
derivatives at the heart of the crisis were unregulatable. Instead of reducing or
spreading risk, they amplified it and hid it.
1
Because the risk measurement models
used by both companies and regulators gave the illusion that everything was under
control, they made things worse. “Giving someone the wrong map is worse than
giving them no map at all,” the options trader and risk expert Nassim Nicholas Taleb
pointed out.
2
US and UK officials, clinging to the dogma that regulation could handle
any surprises thrown up by the explosive financial innovations of the 1990s and 2000s
(or that the innovations regulated themselves), refused to consider the possibility that
certain kinds of product, and certain kinds of market, were simply too dangerous to be
allowed to exist.

More at the link....

____


If I am getting the basic gist of the link, it's factions of the corporate world that has largely been behind the carbon credit industry - on that I would completely agree. Initially, Enron was one of the largest contributors to the scheme.

The carbon exchange will simply be another form of stock market - a way to make billions and billions more for a select few. This in itself is not troubling to me - it is the deception, and the cost to everyone else that this carbon exchange will impact. And the US economy will be the worse for it - while multinationals will see the greatest fiscal benefit.

And all of this under the guise of helping the planet of course...

 

[RodISHI]

____


If I am getting the basic gist of the link, it's factions of the corporate world that has largely been behind the carbon credit industry - on that I would completely agree. Initially, Enron was one of the largest contributors to the scheme.

The carbon exchange will simply be another form of stock market - a way to make billions and billions more for a select few. This in itself is not troubling to me - it is the deception, and the cost to everyone else that this carbon exchange will impact. And the US economy will be the worse for it - while multinationals will see the greatest fiscal benefit.

And all of this under the guise of helping the planet of course...

Just another way to tax people for what the money mongers do and make a few bucks while they are at it.

New day new scam. No doubt that certain things need to be cleaned up but to add more of a burden on the people for these guys can suck out more profits is just another criminal adventure for them.