Stream of Conscience: Not Evil Just Wrong to Stream Live, for Free, Over Internet This Sunday. Here’s the trailer video:
In this movie, you’ll see Dr. James Hansen refuse to say Steve McIntyre’s name, among other things.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Fewer than 50 hours from the 8 pm EDT Sunday launch of Not Evil Just Wrong — set to be the world’s largest simultaneous film premiere party in history — the documentary’s co-creators today announced options for people across the globe to watch it FREE over the internet. Live links follow.
In addition to the thousands of individual DVD/theatrical premiere parties being hosted across the nation (map available here), the documentary will also be streamed live over the Internet — accessed for free by anyone who visits the site. Not Evil Just Wrong will also be available on several Internet domains to ensure bandwidth sufficient to handle the expected massive interest in the documentary.
The popular website Big Hollywood (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com) has announced its intention to live-stream the documentary over its site, as has the American Family Association (http://action.afa.net). Other options are expected to follow.
“Technology has always been anathematic to those who dominate the modern environmental movement,” said Ann McElhinney, co-director of Not Evil Just Wrong. “And after this Sunday, perhaps we’ll have a clearer idea why. Three years ago, immediately following the release of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, we simply wouldn’t have had the capability to reach this many people short of equipping each and every one of them with his own DVD. Today, we have that technology, and thanks to Andrew Breitbart and the folks at AFA, millions of additional people will have the chance to see this film, consider its message, and be inspired to act as a result.”
Visitors to the live-streaming sites will also be able to watch (and, through social networking sites, even participate in) the panel discussion scheduled for immediately after the film, featuring experts such as world-renowned new media pioneer and ACORN buster Andrew Breitbart and the inestimable John Fund of the Wall Street Journal — among several others who will be on hand to moderate the panel and answer questions submitted by the worldwide audience.
Relevant links and information are included below.
What: World premiere of Not Evil Just Wrong
When: Sunday, 8:00 PM EDT; panel discussion with Andrew Breitbart, John Fund, Prof. Richard Lindzen, and Prof. Don Roberts Emeritus to immediately follow.
Where: One of hundreds of premiere sites across the country (and thousands around the world)
Live Streams:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/not-evil-just-wrong
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com
To Participate:
— Twitter: http://twitter.com/Not_Evil
— Facebook: http://facebook.com/noteviljustwrong/
— YouTube (just send us a message with your attached video):
http://youtube.com/noteviljustwrong
Bob Tisdale (03:34:09) :
As Dr. Svalgaard reminds us, the variations in the solar cycle (min to max, or max to min) can only be responsible for a change in global temperature of 0.07 deg C. You’re also implying that with an extended solar minimum there is some kind of cumulative cooling effect–that is, you’re implying that the longer the solar cycle stays at minumum, the colder global temperatures will get. What is the basis of this?
This probably isn’t the thread to get into this one, but I’ll just mention in passing that the calculations I did on OHC that Leif Svalgaard himself verified suggest this is not the case. On the next thread where he repeated this I asked why he was ignoring what we had agreed and both his post and my reply were later deleted. Very strange.
The fact is, the ocean must retain and lose heat on longer timescales than have been previously supposed. The effect of the sun over the cycle is masked by the fact that el ninos of bigger amplitude occur more often near solar min and la ninas often occur near solar max. The upshot is that longer term effects of solar variation are underestimated.
When the sunspot number is below about 40/month, the oceans lose heat. This later manifests itself in lower air temperatures, notwithstanding the fluctuations caused by el nino/la nina.
Staffan Lindström (06:17:54) :
tallbloke (1:33:57) … and other Eussies […] 1. Get Banshee Alarm or some other
wakening up software if your clock-radio or alarm-clock won’t help…!?
2. Use Camstudio free version…if the movie is NOT directly DOWNSTREAMABLE,
Staffan, thanks. It’s getting up for work on a monday morning that doesn’t help. 😉
Now all I need is a bigger hard drive….
Warmist’s and Muslims react in the same manner when they don’t like the news, no matter the facts.
We all remember the Muslim riots that broke out all over the world after the Danish Cartoons were published!
Well, warmist’s respond in a similar way when a weatherman tells his public Global Warming has stopped since 1998.
So I have asked myself, what it is that the Warmist’s and Muslims have in common.
It’s submission. Submission to a religion.
Muslims submit to Islam voluntarily and live happy lives, selling oil and driving big SUV’s.
Warmist’s however provide the political platform to a totalitarian process that will put the shackles on humanity, severely disrupting our freedom, prosperity and probably ending the life of billions prematurely.
Control over CO2 emissions = control over every aspect of life.
It’s the ultimate wet dream of every totalitarian geek and this is where
they (the political rats) have been waiting for since the collapse of the Iron Curtain.
The irony of it all is that the warmist’s still don’t understand is that they will be put in shackles too.
It will be a double shocker when they wake up and find themselves in a real nightmare.
They not only find themselves in a colder climate, but also will lack the energy to warm up.
I don’t have to wonder what their response to “Not Evil, Just Wrong” will be?
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/columnists/Bill-Carmichael-Weathering-a-climate.5739475.jp
Great comments all.
This is how they get us. As to why and who, thats a whole nother story.
PART ONE:
What is the Hegelian Dialectic?
http://nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.html
PART TWO:
The Historical Evolution of
Communitarian Thinking
http://nord.twu.net/acl/evolution.html
Pamela Gray,
I agree completely, there are some of us who migrate to the middle ground through age and experience more than educational ability.
Although I would probably be declared a capatilist by many greens, being a director of a company, I would say that I have had a left leaning view the majority of my life and definitely not place myself in the greed is good catagory. Common sense is one of the greatest attributes of the human race and should be prevalent not only in society, business but also in politics.
Being bombarded with global warming threats in order to extract more taxation, both personally and business, is an affront to our common sense which I totally disagree with but on the other side of the coin wanting to live the American dream is not the alternative argument and makes me giggle every time I read it on this informed web site.
Please note, a lot of us have quite happy lives not being American even though we both may share the same requirements for our future generations it isn’t just one nations dream to advance our culture, personally I would prefer all humans to benefit.
Another Republican in favor of the Climate Bill.
They are bribed into Cap & Trade, one after the other:
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE59G1B120091017
Call them and let them know what you think.
Anthony,
Regardless of the “quality” of the production, I think it is a great opportunity to include -at the very minimum- our families in the debate.
Since you have seen it, would you recommend it as age appropriate for 7 and ups?
I have signed up on USTREAM and have filled out my RSVP for tonight’s premier. Lindzen is on the panel for the debate afterwards.
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/your-premiere/resources/live-stream
Yes, great comments.
The commutarianism ideal of the Greens is also their Achilles Heel. The unprecedented suffering and worldwide devastation over the last 100 years, that has directly resulted from the brutal philosophy of dialectical materialism, ought to inure us to that irrational evil, for no other reason than its complete failure to advance communities, peace, distributed wealth, freedom, and other putative communtarian goals.
But it is hard to escape the black/white false propositions so central to the Dialectic. All issues are forceably bifurcated into mirrored absurdities, and hence all conclusions derived are also false.
Which is why my personal choice is express a point of view that exists outside the Dialectic entirely, namely that Warmer Is Better.
The virtues of that point of view are that it is true, which always helps, but also that it dismisses the popular dialectical catagories (alarmist vs skeptics) as largely irrelevant as well as specious, which they are.
But that’s just me …
>>Muslims submit to Islam voluntarily.
>>Warmist’s however provide the political platform to a totalitarian process
Umm, you mean like the political platform to totalitarian Islam??
.
Ron de Haan (11:18:56) :
from your link:
“Companies that find ways to use clean, alternative energy in manufacturing and end up with an excess number of permits could sell them to firms making slower environmental progress. ”
Zero sum game at an astronomically high price tag.
We humans are indeed part of Earth.. U think we can alter her.. We cannot.. We are just as needed by Earth as plants, micro organisms, chickens, fish, water, air, supermarkets, funparks, lotions, clouds, rock and so on. 🙂
It might sound crazy but what if Earth is so complex and so in balance, that there is no room for us trying to change it..
Earth created us and needs us.. Like they say, we are part of the system..
Wow.. That to think that some people want us to believe that we can control the weather by HAARP.. What if it is all just a big lie.. there is no cooling, there is no warming, there is no west, there is no east..
Just one holistic system of systems..
Earth.
Kate: You commented on my reply to Michael, “…What you fail to mention is that the average temperature only went up 0.42ºC and it has since fallen to just over 0.2ºC and is still falling, so average temperatures are still falling, not rising.”
But if we look at what I quoted from Michael, “Our Sun has been in a low output state for more than two years which is a major reason why last year was cold and why this year will be even colder,” I was very specific in the time period, as was he. It’s tough to imagine, as Michael wrote, “that this year will be even colder,” because, if you’ll recall, there were a number of climate index suppliers that were proclaiming record or near record monthly temperatures for the past few months. That was my part of my point. I’m sorry I did not make it clearer. His statement has little merit, and unless something very unusual happens, this year will not be cooler than last year.
And thanks for providing the info on The Global Warming Petition Project, but I’m a blogger, not a scientist. I investigate climate data, I present it in graphs, and I discuss how the data contradicts the AGW hypothesis, GCMs, etc. Nothing more, nothing less. Having my name on a list would detract from it.
Regards
Mike D. (12:01:06) :
I’ll agree with that in the past tense:
Remember to tell your grandchildren about the good times, when the Earth was warmer.
@ur momisugly Kate (06:58:43) :
It is amazing that there are people that still believe The Petition Project has any merit.
The petition, organized by the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine (OISM), includes a letter of support from Frederick Seitz, former President of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, along with a Wall Street Journal editorial and an article from The Journal of Physicians and Surgeons. This journal is not a peer-reviewed journal for climate science nor any other atmosphere-related field. In essence, anything published in this journal that relates to climate science must be considered “questionable” at best.
The National Academy of Sciences has released the following statement regarding the OISM Petition:
The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.
When questioned in 1998, OISM’s Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, “and of those the greatest number are physicists.” This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science – such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology – and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM’s website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. OISM has refused to release information on the number of mailings it made.
As of October 2007, the petition project website includes an article by Arthur Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon, published in 2007 in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
Because this petition is still being circulated today, one would think that the OISM would support their dubious claims by including a recent article from a peer-reviewed climate-related publication. Because OISM has not done so, it speaks volumes to these unfounded claims.
[snip – Scott if you believe that statement, put it on your own website at SUNY, and take the heat there. But don’t put it on mine – Anthony]
tallbloke: You wrote, “This probably isn’t the thread to get into this one, but I’ll just mention in passing that the calculations I did on OHC that Leif Svalgaard himself verified suggest this is not the case.”
Gotta link to the earlier thread?
Lucy Skywalker (01:19:28) :
But I always live in hope. Perhaps this brave new film will help. And incidencally, “brave new world” as used by Aldous Huxley (not Darwin’s bulldog Huxley) is a sad misquote of Miranda’s words in Shakespeare’s The Tempest. I live in hope of seeing that original quote properly remembered too.
“O, wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in’t!”
Words true.
Scott Mandia : Have you read the “upside down” article posted today ? I assume that the Mann et al paper was peer reviewed .
It is evil to tell lies that are aimed at guilting people into reducing their standard of living — pure evil. Even worse when they know what they are doing when doing it.
The real travesty of the entire AGW saga — Telling lies about science is the worst thing that can happen to real scientists, should be seekers of truth, those on grant money or those on their own.
Credibility is not a renewable resource.
PMH: You wrote, “Please elaborate; with apologies to Dr. Svalgaad I missed his reminder.”
I did a quick search and Leif explains it a number of times on this thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/04/nasa-goddard-study-suggests-solar-variation-plays-a-role-in-our-current-climate/
There a blogger wrote, “Back of the envelope figgerin’ says 1,361 watts/m² of solar energy gives us a temperature of roughly 288 K. A 0.1% increase of input should produce a 0.29 K increase in temp, almost three times what they’re offering.”
And Leif replied, “Back of the envelope calculation gives a quarter of your figure, namely 0.07 degrees, close to ‘what they offer’. This is so because of Stefan-Boltzmann’s law that say that radiation increases with the fourth power of temperature, so each percent of temperature rise gives four percent radiation increase [and vice versa].”
If the solar cycle varies TSI by ~1 watt/meter^2, then global temperature should respond ~0.07 deg C.
Regards
Kate (06:58:43) :
Kate (or anyone else) – is there an international petition equivalent to this?
I will sign in a heartbeat.
Scott Mandia (12:43:33),
Rather than argue facts, you did your failed ad hominem attack. May I debunk? Thank you:
Art Robinson answered critics like you when the number of signatures on the OISM Project was at ≈17,000. Since then, due to widespread publicity, many thousands more U.S. scientists have attached their signatures to the petition.
In this link Dr Robinson explains the vetting process. Yes, naturally there are a few “Mickey Mouse” type signatures. There always are in a petition of this size. But they are weeded out. That leaves you to try and explain the tens of thousands of legitimate signatures on the petition. I challenge you to try.
It is preposterous to claim, as you are doing, that scientists like Dr Edward Teller, Prof Freeman Dyson, and Dr Frederick Seitz — along with tens of thousands of other scientists — were too ignorant to understand what they were signing. Only a fool would believe that.
I don’t think you are a fool. I think you’re desperately grasping at straws because your AGW conjecture is going down in flames, as the world is beginning to see.
The OISM petition is very a simple and straightforward statement. It cautions against any kind of Kyoto agreement, then states:
That language reflects my position throughout these threads. The alarmist crowd has still provided no convincing scientific evidence of their CO2=AGW conjecture. None. Rather, they point to computer models as their putative ‘evidence’.
But models are not evidence. Models are only tools. Evidence is data, and for the scientific method to work, that data must be openly and transparently shared with the scientific community.
Yet the alarmist community [including Science, Nature, and many other mainstream journals and organizations] connive with the authors whose papers they publish, to withhold their raw data and methodologies from other scientists.
The fact that the raw data is withheld, or is “adjusted” without explanation, means that those promoting AGW have plenty to hide.
Your claim that 30,000+ American scientists were unaware of what they were signing, and claiming that a handful of fraudulent signatures negates what all the rest of the petition signers intended, indicates that your back is up against the wall. You have lost the argument, and everyone here knows it. It is finally dawning on the general public as well.
Bob Tisdale (12:54:30) :
tallbloke: You wrote, “This probably isn’t the thread to get into this one, but I’ll just mention in passing that the calculations I did on OHC that Leif Svalgaard himself verified suggest this is not the case.”
Gotta link to the earlier thread?
It’s long and convoluted, and I’ll be writing it all up in neat so hang on for that.
tallbloke: I asked you, “Gotta link to the earlier thread?” Now I’ll ask, is it this one?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/23/evidence-of-a-lunisolar-influence-on-decadal-and-bidecadal-oscillations-in-globally-averaged-temperature-trends/
4 billion (04:31:56) :“Ice is the enemy of life”..not to the billion or so people who rely on Glacier fed water supply.”
Reference, please. IPCC publications are not acceptable.
Belvedere (12:30:41) :
Wow.. That to think that some people want us to believe that we can control the weather by HAARP..
That HAARP thing….I´ve been speculating… what if back in the 1980´s when that guy of the warming earth appeared around (JH) with his models was informed of some (naive) experiments run with that thing and then it happened the 1983 first big el Nino, and a few years after, in 97-98 the second and bigger el Nino..he should have thought: We did it!, we got to do something about it! and then all this story perhaps began… 🙂