Do not have MS Outlook Express installed on your computer but have to open EML file, do not worry. Just download free EML viewer and open the file instantly. Free EML viewer is a standalone utility, which has been designed to help users in opening EML.
| Not Evil Just Wrong | |
|---|---|
| Directed by | Phelim McAleer Ann McElhinney |
| Produced by | Phelim McAleer Ann McElhinney |
| Distributed by | Greener Horizon Films |
Release date | |
Running time | 90 minutes |
| Country | Ireland |
| Language | English |
Not Evil Just Wrong is a 2009 documentary film by Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer that challenges Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth by suggesting that the evidence of global warming is inconclusive and that the impact global warming legislation will have on industry is much more harmful to humans than beneficial.[1] The movie was filmed in 2008 and was screened at the International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam[2] and at the RightOnline conference in 2009.[3]
Despite earlier screenings at conservative political conferences, filmmakers promoted a 'premiere' on 18 October 2009.[4] The film attempted to break a World Record for largest simultaneous premiere, which is currently held by the documentary The Age of Stupid, another global warming documentary.[5] The film's website claims that there were 6,500 US screenings and 1,500 foreign screenings and reached 400,000 people.[6]
- 2Production and reception
Summary[edit]
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 information 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] No such 'ban' actually exists.[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]
Production and reception[edit]
Funding[edit]
In 2008, McElhinney and McAleer raised almost $1 million (€799,000) from real estate investors,[13] but said they needed a total of $4.5 million for a cinema release.[1] After the film was turned down for funding by the Irish Film Board, the filmmakers then began taking donations online.[1] The film failed to find a commercial distributor.[14]
Production[edit]
The documentary has been noted for being a very similar style to Michael Moore's documentaries by using file footage of old movies, cartoons and class-based arguments. McAleer has been quoted saying, 'I would not be making documentaries if it wasn't for Michael Moore,' he says. 'He aroused my interest and people's interest in documentaries. He's also made it acceptable for people to go to the movie theatre and watch documentaries. I hate to say it but we're all children of Michael Moore.'[15]
Reception[edit]
Mother Jones published a highly critical article on the movie. Stephanie Mencimer wrote that 'The film is poorly organised and rehashes the familiar talking points of climate change sceptics —global warming as bad science; climate concerns as hysteria akin to that over killer bees, etc. Pushing those views are the usual suspects, including Patrick Moore, the Greenpeace founder turned nuclear power lobbyist, and Thatcher-era British politician Nigel Lawson.'[14]
A premiere party was held by the Heritage Foundation, where it was also broadcast on Ustream and the American Family Association channel.[16] 'We may at last be getting our Michael Moore,' said Fred Smith, of the AFA, 'A virtuous Michael Moore!'[17] Suzanne Fields from the Washington Times said, 'Ann McElhinney's film focuses on people (not polar bears) whose paychecks and families are dependent on coal-generated energy, and whose interests are usually ignored in abstract statistics.'[18] The Online Opinion, said that the movie excelled 'in pointing to the absurdities and gross contradictions in the current scare over global warming.'[19]
Balanced Education for Everyone[edit]
In 2010, the directors of Not Evil Just Wrong teamed up with the Independent Women's Forum to launch a Balanced Education for Everyone (B.E.E.), which promotes balanced education in public schools about climate science.[20] The program suggests that if An Inconvenient Truth is shown in classrooms, then Not Evil Just Wrong should also be shown to offer students a broader curriculum about the climate debate.[20] The directors also created an educational guide to teach about climate change, in conjunction with offering the free DVD to classrooms.[20]
Subsequent events[edit]
Mother Jones subsequently reported that the husband of Tiffany McElhany, the Indiana women highlighted in the film as at risk of losing her standard of living should controls on carbon be enacted, was laid off from his job at a car parts plant. 'It turns out that McElhany's story, too, is more complicated than Not Evil would have you believe. She is by far the documentary's most compelling character, and seems poised to become a minor heroine to the Tea Party crowd. Yet for all her talk of the bounty that coal has brought to Vevay, when I contacted her for this story she disclosed that her husband was laid off in March and has been unemployed ever since. It appears that a lot of dirty industry jobs have disappeared with no help at all from environmentalists.'[14]
References[edit]
- ^ abcMcGee, Harry (15 November 2008). 'Film-makers taking on our 'global warming hysteria''. The Irish Times. Retrieved 25 July 2009.
- ^van Slooten, Johan (1 December 2008). 'The truths and myths of global warming'. Radio Netherlands Worldwide. Archived from the original on 21 August 2009. Retrieved 12 October 2009.
- ^Weigel, David (18 August 2009). 'RightOnline Attendees Soak Up Success'. The Washington Independent. Archived from the original on 19 September 2009. Retrieved 12 October 2009.
- ^'Not Evil Just Wrong Website'. Retrieved 13 October 2009.
- ^'Dedication's What You Need' (Press release). Spanner Films. 14 March 2009. Retrieved 12 October 2009.
- ^'Not Evil Just Wrong Website'. Retrieved 13 December 2009.
- ^Wall Street Journal, In Climate Debate, The 'Hockey Stick' Leads to a Face Off, 14 February 2005
- ^Not Evil Just Wrong, The Hockey Stick Debunked Again, 28 September 2009
- ^'Washington Independent'.
- ^'Ann McElhinney'. Greener Horizon Films. Retrieved 22 September 2010.
- ^The DDT ban myth that will not die
- ^Not Evil Just Wrong, Contributors: Tiffany McElhany
- ^'Washington Independent'.
- ^ abcMencimer, Stephanie Mencimer (10 November 2009). 'Tea Partiers' Next Target: The Climate Bill'. Mother Jones. Retrieved 10 November 2009.
- ^Anderson, Jason (18 October 2009). 'Not Evil Just Wrong challenges environmental claims'. Toronto Star. Retrieved 30 January 2018.
- ^'Not Evil Just Wrong'. Heritage Foundry. Archived from the original on 24 December 2009.
- ^Washington Independent, Conservative Media Push Anti-Gore Documentary, October 14, 2009
- ^Washington Times, An Inconvenient Rebuttal, 22 October 2009
- ^'Film review: 'Not Evil Just Wrong''. Online Opinion. 14 October 2009.
- ^ abc'About BEE'. Balanced Education for Everyone. Archived from the original on 15 April 2010. Retrieved 25 May 2010.
External links[edit]
- Not Evil Just Wrong on IMDb
Modern conservatives bask in a fantasy world where they assume environmental regulations are unnecessary to mitigate human overpopulation and the cannibalization of nature to support a single species at the expense of others. They 'forget' all the earlier battles fought to protect nature from their own denier ilk, and they simply ignore climate science and worst-case warming scenarios.
You won't find any accurate coverage in this film of CO2's huge impacts on 'radiative forcing,' the key factor in trapping heat over time. CO2 controls about 80% of radiative forcing, per NASA and other sources. Conservatives throw around the term 'trace gas' without the context of CO2's potency. They harp on water vapor as the most powerful greenhouse gas, but water vapor is in constant flux while CO2 lingers far longer in the atmosphere and modulates the net warming effect. Without CO2, most of the world would be frozen. How can anyone think it's an insignificant gas if they really understand what it does?
The film is full of appeals to 'ordinary people vs. the elites' but the former often have no understanding of the science. The message is politicized, not truly investigated on its scientific merit. The main tactic is to create doubt about the climate consensus without ever proving that doubts are valid. It's the same old denialism repackaged with a not so clever title.
I find it especially ironic that these filmmakers claim to be concerned about the poor, downtrodden masses who are already suffering from climate change in low-lying areas and marginal farming regions. They will be the worst hit, so stop playing them as 'victims of environmentalism.' The real good guys are not science-denying capitalist zealots.
Permalink
When it comes to controversial subject matters such as man-made climate change, I, personally, prefer to listen to a debate, with both sides represented, than a, more or less, one sided documentary.
However, I'd heard many good things about this documentary and, as it's made by two Irish journalists and fellow citizens of mine, I was that bit more intrigued.
The Good: There are some excellent scientific counter arguments presented and there are numerous 'big claims' made by pro-climate change heavy weights, most notably Al Gore, that are either discredited or exposed as sensationalist non-truths or, at the very least, exaggerations of the facts.
There seems to be a, somewhat, credible line-up of contributors on hand to lend their views, scientific know how or experience in this field.
I'm sure that, if there were a direct answer to this documentary from the 'pro' side, there would probably be an equal amount of statements and 'facts' discredited in the, sometimes, mud-slinging arena, that is climate change..
The bad: I'm not a scientist, so I'm not in a position to discredit or, indeed, endorse the 'facts' in this documentary, so I won't go there.
While the impact on the 'average' family and, of course, those who are already impoverished, is certainly something that needs to be emphasized, as cheap fossil fuels may be replaced with more expensive 'greener' forms, along with carbon taxes being introduced by many governments, I felt that the time dedicated to 'the average middle American family' was far too long.
This movie clocks in at just under 90 minutes with approximately 25-30 minutes taken up by an overweight women and her malnourished husband who are both, by the own admission, not very well educated.
Not being very well educated is certainly not a crime but, in a documentary supposedly exposing the bad science of the Al Gore led pro-climate change group, a family employed in the industrial sector explaining that they 'couldn't pay for their new wooden floors' and 'entertainment systems' if it weren't for their industrial jobs and how they're 'living their American dream', isn't science.. or even a valid argument, in the grand scheme of things. Of course, the impact on family's standard of living is a very important topic that should not be swept under the carpet but 10 minutes would have been sufficient in this particular documentary.
In my opinion, I feel it takes away a little creditability from what is, otherwise, a very fine piece of work.
So, if you're like me and still not completely sold on either side, this is well worth a look.
Permalink
This film fails to achieve its goal of giving an alternative solution to the climate crisis but it does succeed in clouding the discussion and confusing its intended audience about the issue. I can tell the film does not aim to inform the audience because it purposely contains contradictory statements and vague assumptions without evidence. They usually bring up Al Gore's arguments then either use unrelated or untrue political arguments instead of scientific arguments, or pull a bait and switch and attack something else, trying to tie it to the argument. All three main points have issues with consistency and accuracy as well, which helps muddying the waters. The discussion on climate data accuracy contradicts itself multiple times. Some experts claim that the icecaps are retreating because of natural temperature oscillation, then others claim that the icecaps are actually growing. Patrick Moore discuss how the temperature is not at its hottest currently and the temperature is not warming, then claims that there is warming happening and it is good for us. The experts also uses red herring, ad hominem and strawman arguments in their discussion in this section, such as claiming that the data from 1932 that was incorrectly calculated completely discredits the whole argument. They couple these arguments with scenes of children repeating environmentalist talking points in an effort to make the arguments sound naive. The creators of the film claim to have the goal of providing an alternative look and set of solutions relative to Al Gore's film, but this technique they are using fails to do that. The children are not giving any alternatives or solutions, the experts discussing the issues brought up by the children are misleading the audience with false alternatives, and are also not providing any solutions. The goal I believe the film had, muddying the debate so people would not know what to believe and lose interest, does benefit from this technique since it confuses the audience. During the malaria discussion the film the film plays to people's emotions by attacking environmentalists' character. They claimed that environmentalists overwhelmingly were anti-human juxtaposed with the scenes of struggling families from third world countries in an attempt to blame the environmentalists for their misfortunes. This is very misleading on many fronts. One is the assertion of environmentalists being anti human. They do this without any data to back it up, just anecdotes about experts who disagree with them. Another misleading aspect is that the actions of the environmentalists did not cause the issues they are pointing to. When they claim that Rachel Carson is responsible for millions of African deaths, they fail to mention that DDT was never banned for malaria control and that countries that stopped using DDT for malaria control did so because it was no longer effective in controlling malaria. They also claim that Rachel Carson is a discredited scientist which is blatantly false. The one and only valid point I believe that the film brought up well is the discussion on a baseline for energy needs. With the technology of the time and the expected advancement of technology projected in the ten years that Al Gore called for, the energy output of 100 percent renewable energy would not consistently meet the energy baseline required. The film quickly went back on track to getting things wrong when they claimed that because of this we cannot have any change or reduction. One major example where it could work is increasing the efficiency of new cars that are bought. Transportation creates a significant about of greenhouse gasses and if the cars on the road were much more efficient than air quality will be greatly benefited and the economy will not implode. The final sin this movie made was present in all three points, pitting normal Americans against the elites. They ridiculed Al Gore for using a private jet to get around, portrayed him and many other environmentalists as out of touch and uncaring, and they falsely claimed that the average American was the victim of environmental extremism. This is done quite well by the film and allows them to replace an actual argument against Al Gore with a political sentiment of us versus them. It is unfortunately effective politically and at muddying the debate, but is very poor at actually informing people about an issue. This film is considered a documentary but at its best it is propaganda. The film is contradictory, fails at informing the audience, and obscures the debate and science in a hope that people will lose interest and not engage. I believe that the film has a near perfect title, but with a few edits I believe that title could be used to describe itself rather than Al Gore. Just evil and wrong.
Permalink
If you are an environmentalist, consider this... will you be so sure you have the truth when you've been laid off and are living on the street because the factory or business you were so quick to shut down for polluting was the place feeding your family and paying your bills? Don't just pass this movie by because you think you know everything, do the smart thing and watch it with an open mind, you'll be very surprised at how much you don't know. It is not a conspiracy theory film nor is it made by uninformed bored idiots, it's an honest film and a lot of time and research went into diving deeper into such a huge issue.
Permalink
Not Evil Just Wrong Dvd
The plot thickensNot Evil Just Wrong Movie Download
Not Evil Just Wrong Torrent
Permalink