jennifermarohasy.com/blog - The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:

Subscribe

September 2009
M T W T F S S
« Aug   Oct »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

Tags

Archives

Authors

Site search

Please visit

Categories

Nature Photographs

Links

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.

Not Evil Just Wrong

HOLLYWOOD loves a movie full of dire predictions about the end of the Earth.   Of course global warming has been all the rage with Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth winning an Oscar.  Although I did prefer The Day After Tomorrow in which a climatologist, played by Dennis Quad, tried to save his son in New York from an ice age.

There is a new movie due for release on October 18, Not Evil Just Wrong, which explores society’s interest in Armageddon-type scenarios with a particular focus on the cost, and potential costs, of the policies following concerns about DDT and AGW [anthropogenic global warming].

I was lucky enough to be given a sneak preview of the feature length documentary by Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney last week.  

The movie is an exploration of the fears and aspirations of an ordinary small town American woman – Tiffany McElhany from Vevay – and her quest to get a message to Al Gore.  Interwoven with this story are interviews with some of the most famous climate scientists of our time including James Hansen and Richard Lindzen.    

Like McAleer and McElhinney’s earlier documentary, Mine Your Own Business, Not Evil Just Wrong is politically incorrect, compelling and spans several continents including Africa while exploring its subject matter with harshness and humour.  

Those unfamiliar with the controversies behind the banning of DDT and push to phase out coal as a source of electricity, may find parts of the documentary unbelievable.  Hopefully it will move them to follow up with more of their own research.  

Sub thematically, the movie investigates our lives as part of a  technological and rational society with ordinary people in Africa, Ireland and America wanting to do the right thing by their families, communities and the Earth.

Not surprisingly there have been barriers to the production and distribution of the movie from the mainstream film industry. I say not surprisingly, because the film unashamedly challenges the populist views on AGW, and no one seems to want to hear the debating points.

Undeterred McAleer and McElhinney are seeking your help in bypassing these obstacles and inviting you to be part of the premiere night through the hosting of a screening in your home, community centre or church.

“Be part of the cinematic tea party movement and tell Al Gore and the elites that you are fed up with taxes and restrictions that threaten jobs across the country,” says Ann McElhinney.

Perhaps this is your opportunity to come out – at work, on Facebook, over the dinner table – and tell your colleagues, friends and/or family you are not completely convinced by all the global warming hype.  Tell them you are planning a film night on Sunday October 18, 2009 and that they are invited.   Almost everything you need to make the evening a success comes with the party pack you can buy online.  Clicking on the advertisement at the top right hand side of this blog page – basic packs with DVD and red carpet are US$30. 

**************************************

Notes and Links

This blog site receives AU$5 for every party pack sold by linking from the above flashing badge.

Advertisement

164 Responses to “Not Evil Just Wrong”

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] Show All

  1. Comment from: hunter


    SJT,
    Define ‘spin off its axis’.
    I define it as ‘moving from its present orientation’.
    According to the paper I linked to, that is exactly what they said.
    Your pitiful attempt at a defense of AGW, of fixating on one thing that a person says, redefining it so that you can disagree with it, and then claiming that disagreement means the other person is a liar, is predictable, tedious, wrong and boring.
    But hey, if I was trying to defend my faith by pretending it is scientific, I would have to use the same techniques.
    And everyone paying attention knows you do this, along with never actually addressing the points raised. At least Luke does his trollishness with style. You just plod along, repeating ‘liar’, and dismissing what is said, as if your act of dismissal is a refutation.
    And your line about ‘people don’t know the scope of climate change’ as an excuse for the pap being passed off as ‘climate science’ is odd, because you are defending the apocalyptic stuff you claim I am lying about by highlighting.
    It is almost as if in SJT’s theology, only the true believer in AGW is worthy to comment on AGW.
    AGW is apocalyptic clap trap, and its true believers, as you demonstrate so aptly, are fools.
    Get a life, troll.
    Mack,
    It is almost as if the AGW hype machine is dopplering into a tinny, tiny speed up screech of doom and gloom and hype.
    Sort of like this:
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/717889/invader_zim_the_doom_song/

  2. Comment from: SJT


    SJT,
    Define ’spin off its axis’.
    I define it as ‘moving from its present orientation’.

    All of a sudden your accusation has moved from an alarmist one to a reasonable one. You are no longer lying.

  3. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    Hunter,

    The solar currents discovery – well, remember it’s not my theory to start with, and all of the scientific literature on it is via the IEEE Plasma Universe section. My peers reckon I am bit ahead of my time, which is probably correct – but knowing the politics behind science and the Lyellian legacy geology is saddled with, it will take a few more years for the paradigm to start shifting, providing the AGW mob haven’t destroyed our economies as they intend to.

    SJT’s volte face is amusing – a rotating troll no less.

  4. Comment from: SJT


    Moving from it’s present orientation? That is constantly happening, at a slow rate. “Spin off it’s axis” is the alarmist hyperbole that implies it is going to start spinning like a top that is out of control. Which is a lie.

  5. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    SJT,
    ““Spin off it’s axis” is the alarmist hyperbole that implies it is going to start spinning like a top that is out of control. Which is a lie.”

    Given that alarmists are basically AGW supporters, does this mean you admit to telling untruths finally? Or have you started to distance yourself from the AGW alarmists given existing realities.

  6. Comment from: hunter


    SJT,
    The only thing that changed is your choosing to stop calling me a liar.
    But does this mean that you are going to start policing the vast amount of hyperbole the AGW communit relies for each and everyone of its claims?

  7. Comment from: SJT


    SJT,
    The only thing that changed is your choosing to stop calling me a liar.
    But does this mean that you are going to start policing the vast amount of hyperbole the AGW communit relies for each and everyone of its claims?

    As far as I can tell, the hyperbole is generated by the deniers. You just gave a good example. There was no claim of a disaster due to the earth spinning off it’s axis, the change would only be of some academic interest.

  8. Comment from: hunter


    SJT,
    The only way to claim that AGW promoters are not using hyperbole and over the top hype to sell their theory is to either be a congenital idiot or a deliberate liar.
    Clarify yourself, please.

  9. Comment from: Ed Darrell


    Oh, I missed most of the fun.

    Someone said: “Although DDT wasn’t banned for vector control, the negative reaction of certain influential groups to DDT anywhere, anytime, prompted western manufacturers to stop making it entirely. Today, if you want DDT for vector control, you’re stuck with China, North Korea and India as suppliers. Is there any question that after the agricultural ban, use of DDT for vector control also dropped drastically and malaria deaths shot up?”

    Actually, the ban on DDT in the U.S. didn’t stop U.S. manufacturers at all. Under U.S. law the companies could continue to manufacture the stuff for export, and they did with abandon right up until 1984, when the the laws required them to do the manufacturing safely, and clean up spills. Abruptly, most on the day before the law began to bite, declared bankruptcy. The U.S. now has a number of Superfund cleanup sites as a result.

    It’s true that DDT today is manufactured in India and China, chiefly. It’s also true that in most nations, DDT is not a preferred insecticide for anything, not even fighting malaria. Recent massive tests in several African nations show that bednets are much more effective than DDT (some nets have DDT impregnated, but this isn’t spraying), and nets are much less expensive than DDT.

    Check the statistics. I don’t think it’s fair to say that malaria rose dramatically with the end of DDT broadcast spraying, anywhere.

  10. Comment from: Not Evil, Just Wrong: A Call To Arms! « Thoughts on Freedom


    [...] far the reaction to this film has been overwhelmingly positive: Australia’s Jennifer Marohasy wrote that“Not Evil Just Wrong is politically incorrect, compelling and spans several continents [...]

  11. Comment from: j kross


    The world will fry tomorrow. The sky is falling. The ice is melting. Sea levels are rising. You wanna know more? Gimme the money…Al Gore

  12. Comment from: G;em McBride


    Someone put a large pile of paper from Leon Ashby, a climate sceptic, into my mailbox.. I glanced through it and chuckled at the inadequacy of his thinking, He is obsessed with the inadequacies one can find in the ETS, but failed to see any motes in his own eye.

    I don’t care a damn whether the “human responsible global warming model” is right or wrong. I’m not a climate expert and thus have always been open about the whole story.

    BUT I am enthusiastically in favour of any plans to stop the production of co2 by the use of fossil fuels. Yes, it is right to say that a change to renewable energy will lower our standard of living for a while. They pay lip service to our need to change but ignore the thousand reasons why it is necessary – they are obsessional about the ETS.

    We have enough oil to last perhaps a hundred years and coal perhaps could last for about 400 years. Then there will be nothing cheap left to burn easily and we will be forced to adopt a sustainable lifestyle. Then there will then be no option.

    The present movement towards living with sustainable energy resulting from the experts belief in “Human caused global warming” means that we can soon wean ourselves off burning oil and coal. They are chemical treasure-houses and should never be wasted by burning them. Perhaps our generation could leave some of these treasures for future generations.

    I think we are just thoughtless – we couldn’t care a damn about our descendants. Oil and coal are valuable. We waste most of their properties by burning them. Our descendants would love to have a share but we are so greedy that we want to take them all and waste them for making energy – which we can have endlessly from the sun, tides, wind and geothermally. Stupid and selfish.

    We believe that oil and coal are cheap. They both took millions of years to create – how much should we be valuing a resource if it takes millions of years to produce and can never be replaced? We naively think that the cost of digging them out of the earth is a real cost. Do you believe the costs we pay for coal and oil are realistic? Of course this is nonsense. That trivial cost is what we pretend is their value. This pretending lets us waste them. It also lets us pretend that their use is cheaper than renewable sources of energy. Any child could work out that their use is really a thousand times dearer than renewable energy. You know it is a pretend game and that to conserve these resources is the only sensible course. But we are greedy and of recent years, we learned that greed is good!

    I like to think that our species will last for thousands or millions of years. They will need everything we are ripping out of the earth, every mineral, every chemical. But we want them all and we want them now. We have no plans to ensure that we recapture everything we use once – for every chemical and mineral will last for millions of years and all need conserving and recycling. We are just beginning to think of recycling – a moment’s thought makes it obvious that everything must be conserved, regardless of cost. But our greed allows us to argue that it is mostly too expensive because it is often cheaper to dig more from the earth. Yet every gram will be required over and over again by our descendants.

    We are not sensible livers – we are plunderers. Our economic system has only money as a value measure. It ignores the intrinsic value of these permanent minerals and chemicals. Our only interest is immediate plunder – how much can we rip up, waste and disperse as quickly as we can with as much immediate profit as possible.

    The Club of Rome in the 70′s wrote about “Limits to Growth”. It tried to look ahead, something we should have learned from them – their logic was inescapable. We should have embraced it and made it a central activity for humankind long into the future. They attempted to show how long resources of the earth would last. Technology improved and quickly made their estimates incorrect. The plunderers then made sure that their imaginative attempt at logical thinking and planning ahead was trivialised, denounced and eliminated so completely that one never hears their name today. Yet these were real and imaginative people who tried to look logically at our failure to look ahead and predict sensible consequences. Bright people today could do much better – and those in fifty years hence will be able to do the same job even better still.

    Logic suggests to me that we should be grateful for those finding a reason to stop burning and wasting real resources. It suggests to me that the “climate sceptics” are appealing only to our greed and selfishness rather than thinking about the future of our grandchildren. Sadly logic will never overwhelm greed. So please bless the global warmers and the co2 worriers. They have just a chance of moving us to a sustainable lifestyle a hundred years before we would inevitably be forced to. They could make us pay our own way realistically sooner rather than leaving it to our grandhcildren to pay for our greedy profligate living style. Ask again and again, what is the real value of a tonne of coal or oil? Do you really think it is cheaper than renewable energy?

    You are right about costs. Changing from coal and oil wasting will be expensive. It will mean thousands of people forced to change jobs. It will take enormous resources to invest in these other forms of energy. Only a fool believes that it won’t be necessary – the only question is when. This moment is history offers us a chance to decide to do it soon. We know it will hurt. We do it now or leave it to our grandchildren. The selfish and greedy ones will leave it to our grandchildren. The proud and independent ones will delight in the challenge.

    I suggest that climate sceptics start some real thinking – this time outside the box in which they are locked. Humankind has a real challenge before it and the time is right NOW.

    Please feel free to pass this on – it may help others think beyond next the decade.

    Cheerily

    Glen McBride

  13. Comment from: Sonya


    Mr. McBride, you say you don’t care about the truth (if global warming is wrong or not), but I do. I want to know if I have been lied to, especially by politicians who use scare tactics on my family and I. I want to be sure that as a mother I have been responsible and that I have not perpetuated a lie on my children. What kind of mother would I be if after I have taken extreme measures, some that I could barely afford, to what I thought was protecting the planet it would end up being an innecessary lie? YOU even mention that (to quote you) “Yes, it is right to say that a change to renewable energy will lower our standard of living for a while ” when sincerely at the moment I can not lower anymore my standard of living unless it is by not eating and losing my home. Maybe someone like you can not understand that many people right now at this moment are in survival mode. We don’t have any savings. We lost our jobs. We barely can feed our children. Yet maybe you feel that it would be okay if we lost our homes or even died of starvation as long as we used other sources of energy we can not afford in favor of “descendants…” What descendants, sir? Yours? God knows I have to protect the descendants that I have NOW!!!

  14. Comment from: Donald Roberts


    Globally, DDT availability started to decline in the early 1970s. World Health Assembly documents reveal increasing difficulties for developing countries to obtain DDT as a consequence of environmental activism against DDT. Simultaneously, purchase price of DDT spiraled upward. Whether manufacturers in the U.S. could or could not still produce and export DDT is irrelevant. Globally, production and availability of DDT for public health use declined. At the same time, availability of international funds for sustaining the public health programs declined. In response to those trends and to global activism against DDT, national malaria control programs began decrementing use of DDT in house spray programs and numbers of malaria cases began to increase.
    Ed Darrell states “I don’t think it’s fair to say that malaria rose dramatically with the end of DDT broadcast spraying, anywhere.” Actually, its not a question of fair or not fair, its a question of whether the relationships are true or not true. Where conditions of poverty existed when DDT use began and still existed when DDT use was stopped, malaria increased. If the condition of poverty went away during years of DDT use, then malaria probably did not increase when DDT use was stopped. This is illustrated by what happened in the United States and Taiwan. However, in the Amazon Basin of Brazil and many other regions of the world, poverty was still prevalent when governments stopped or reduced their use of DDT and numbers of malaria cases increased (see: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no3/roberts.htm).
    As a last comment, the observation is not true that use of insecticide treated nets is a more effective method of malaria control than spraying DDT on house walls. There is no example of nets producing the extraordinary levels of control, and in some cases total elimination, that were achieved, and fully documented, through the use of DDT on house walls. There is, however, a great deal of hype about nets that might lead one to think that nets are the best approach to control. Again, the fundamental question is, are the claims true? They are not!

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] Show All