Not Truthful, Just Gore
By Paul Chesser
A viral buzz is probably not something you want to have in these days of H1N1 (swine flu) paranoia.
But if you're Ann McElhinny and Phelim McAleer this week it's not a malady, but a desired condition. That's because Sunday marks the formal public introduction to their film documentary "Not Evil Just Wrong," which follows their 2006 joint effort "Mine Your Own Business." The plan was (and is) to generate enthusiasm and interest in a "premiere" for "Not Evil" via DVD sales, nudged along by Internet promotion and social networking. Purchasers had to promise to simultaneously host screenings and parties for friends and others who are interested in the movie's topic, which is to debunk global warming alarmism.
After unsuccessful efforts last year to raise funds for a massive theatrical rollout, the Internet plan shows signs of contagiousness. The Irish pair, married, can thank a fortuitous timing of events upon which they have been able to capitalize with some clever journalism.
McElhinny and McAleer first generated interest in their work in August, when they drew attention to a BBC interview with Gerd Leipold of Greenpeace, who admitted that a July 15 claim that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2030 was "a mistake" and defended the group's practice of "emotionalizing issues." It was a classic catch of environoiacs in their own excesses.
Then last month McAleer brought a microphone, a camera and a friend (to operate the camera, silly!) to environmentalist filmmaker Franny Armstrong's premiere of "The Age of Stupid," which like every other eco-doc, attracted current and former Hollywood celebrities like David Letterman lures interns. As McAleer noted in a blog post for Big Hollywood:
Much of the "Age Of Stupid" is spent attacking those in the developing world who want our lives and lifestyles. The documentary is particularly critical of those in countries such as India who want to fly more for business or pleasure.
The documentary is quite clear that flying in aeroplanes is disastrous for the planet. "Apart from setting fire to a forest flying is the single worst thing an individual can do to cause climate change," we are told.
So of course McAleer, who had gained press access to the "Stupid" event, showed up in New York as the celebrities and Armstrong walked the green carpet and asked them how they transported themselves to the premiere. It wasn't long before the "Stupid" security team realized he had no palatable questions, shut down his camera, and muscled McAleer far from the proceedings.
Apparently this only whetted his appetite for more interruption and rejection. Last Friday he jumped into the question line first after a speech by Al Gore at the annual conference of the Society of Environmental Journalists. McAleer then promptly asked about nine critical errors in Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth," which a British court two years ago said must be righted before being shown in schools there. The former vice president has done nothing to correct the record, and McAleer asked, "Why?"
The "Stupid" security team may not have liked the challenging questions, but the media toadies who wanted to protect their green leader were downright afraid, so they also used their only defense mechanism: they turned off McAleer's microphone.
That was good and timely for the release of "Not Evil Just Wrong," since the high-traffic Drudge Report highlighted McAleer's exchange with Gore over the entire past weekend. That spurred more radio talk show and other media appearances earlier this week, including an unforgettable debate on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" between McAleer and Environmental Defense president Fred Krupp, who the Irishman reduced to nothing more than a "millionaire lawyer who calls himself an environmentalist."
So what about "Not Evil Just Wrong" as a film?
It effectively makes its points, which are to illustrate how global warming alarmism and its anti-fossil fuel agenda will harm poor countries and their people, because it reduces their access to cheaper, more efficient sources of energy. It makes a mockery of the scientific methods practiced by the climate fearmongers, especially the infamous and now-debunked Michael Mann and his "hockey stick" warming chart. It follows the life of a lower income family whose breadwinner's job is with a local coal-fired power plant, which provides them cheap energy and a higher standard of living.
And the film (as have others) likens the environmentalists' climate change hysteria to the Rachel Carson-inspired DDT ban on pesticides, responsible for millions of deaths in poor African countries. McElhinny and McAleer even interview a U.S. environmentalist working in Uganda, who can't bear the idea of promoting DDT use because of its threat to birds.
If it sounds like the movie jumps around a lot, it does. But that matches the personality and the passion of its filmmakers, and it is surprisingly effective. Best of all, it provides a truthful counterbalance to the award-winning documentary that Gore has yet to correct.
If you're not able to catch a premiere showing of "Not Evil Just Wrong" on Sunday night, that won't be the end of its availability. Watch it soon, and you might even be inspired to suggest it to your children's science teacher.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/16/not-truthful-just-gore
Lepel
" Best of all, it provides a truthful counterbalance to the award-winning documentary that Gore has yet to correct."
Ok, I'm interested. Where do I get the movie?
1Yep. I have the popcorn ready...and waiting.
2I always wondered if Gore changed things in his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" after the High Court in England ruled that it wasn't true. I can't believe that was two years ago; it seems like it has been a lot longer to me.
Anyway, "Not Evil Just Wrong" sounds like a documentary that will make me furious, frustrated and very sad. Because, it will show and tell.....how we have third world countries out there, which could have electricity, but do not. So if these poor people are lucky enough to have their one clinic that actually has a little bit of energy. That energy can EITHER power the one light bulb OR their one refrigerator, where the vaccines are kept from going bad. But it gets even WORSE, it is the only energy for the ENTIRE village! And do you know how they keep warm and cook? They burn poop, (that's right, poop!) inside their little enclosed tents/huts...and it's extremely unhealthy...and all in the name of global warming!
It's sick, evil and wrong. (And that's just one story...and it has just stuck in my heart. I couldn't bare
to watch anything like that again...especially when there is such an easy way fix to things. It's just way too sad.
But, thank you for telling us about it.
I highly recommend watching this documentary to others out there, who don't know how it is affecting other people all over our world.
3I know many people really wanted to whack Gore when we realized his content was not exactly correct BUT I believe that the inaccuracies are minimal compared to the scope and focus.
Yes...there are people who are "all about the facts" but I still say that Gore's Documentary does a good job of giving us a heads-up.
Looking back I am sure we'd have appreciated a heads-up with regards to how important finding other fuels to use so that we'd be independent and free from the grasp of Oil Barons on foreign soil...but we just didn't luck out that way.
While Gore's content may have some glaring mistakes it also has some bright ideas about what we need to do to plan for the future of our planet.
While I am looking forward to seeing this new documentary I am reminded of all those naysayers who simply make a living out of undermining anything someone else has created for their own gain....and these individuals will profit greatly by creating this new documentary.
I think it is important to look at motives here. Gore's motives were plainly to save our planet....but these people are going to profit from his (or his aids) mistakes and somehow damaging an important message.
On a personal note I see first hand what we have done to our oceans when I scuba dive and it is shocking, real, and unfortunately permanent in many areas. That cannot be undone but we can choose to make better choices in our future.
4"I think it is important to look at motives here. Gore's motives were plainly to save our planet....but these people are going to profit from his (or his aids) mistakes and somehow damaging an important message."
Meanwhile, Al Gore (even with his "glaring" mistakes) is profiting by the immense wealth generated by this CO2 buyback/payoff program. His intentions aren't altruistic. The earth was much hotter than it is now, and the hockey-stick graph was a scare tactic. Gore isn't able to prove what the exact temps were for and 10-year set, so how can he make a claim based on general average temps from the last several thousand years and compare to a 10 year sample? That's like taking a second, and prediciting the rest of the year, based on that one second.
5Good points UnDave.
I am not a huge fan of Gore but I believe that if he created any peaked interest in conservation and planning then he was at least partically successful in fostering change.
6If he used the LAST 10 years, he would see a cooling trend, and sinking.
BTW we have do have data to support this that can be fact checked by scientists unlike the global warming scare. Where conclusions are reached without the supporting documents showing data collection techniques or source dat and locations.
7I get that...data IS important. I also think taking care of our environment is pretty obvious, although the shortcomings in Gore's documentary have hurt that argument. With this new documentary we will see more people feeling that we have an endless amount of time before we need to start worrying.
Many people simply do not see the real changes in our environment which is normal because people in general seem to be self-absorbed.
I can remember when smog in the OC was so bad my chest hurt after running in the early 1980's. I can also remember when the sky over the Grand Canyon did not have smog in the 1970's.
While the air quality IS better now we cannot deny that perhaps the "bad" was eventually diluted by simply spreading into areas it hadn't previously been noticed.
I have family photos of the Big Bear Lake area over the past 40 years and there is a drastic change in the trees. During the past 20 years the tops of many of the trees are visibly dead. The level of the lake has receded remarkably as evidence of drought.
Ocean life on the OC coast has been ravaged. There are almost no coral formations along the coast in the OC area until you dive almost a mile out....more in some areas. Marine life is obviously affected.
I never thought I'd be someone who'd jump on the "conservation" wagon but when I started to see the environment around me change drastically it did give me reason to worry for our future.
While I would be far from considered an alarmist, I know our world's natural water tables in many countries are depleted or nearly so which is an issue that brings drastic change.
Lack of water = hunger = illness = crime. We have seen this already in countries who aren't as lucky as we are or have technology in place to aid them.
Perhaps Gore's shortcomings are glaring but I see our planet suffering. Ignoring it because data says it "just isn't that bad" seems a bit short-sighted.
8No one is against clean air or clean water. I have respiratory problems, so clean air is particularly important to me. What has to be weighed though is the benefit cost ratio. We are at the point of the law of diminishing returns, where the cost is way to high in jobs, and prices, compared to the minuscule reduction in "pollution". As long as people want goods and services they will need to be produced transported and delivered. As long as folks want to be warm in the winter and cool in the summer, not to mention a refrigerator or lights to read by we will need power. As long as our poulation grows, the more of all the above will be needed. Ab nihil nihil nit.
9
10Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.