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
ron from Texas: You wrote, “For Bob Tisdale. You might find it interesting that NOAA was able to report a record high SST in July because they dropped sat data and ARGO bouy data from the data set and stuck with just the temp stations located on concrete next AC condenser blower fans (they pull the heat out and away from the condenser) and next trash burn barrels and outside barbecues and near tarmac and surrounded by buildings and assorted fences.”
ron, FYI. SST = sea surface temperature. No A/C condensing units, or trash barrels, or barbecues, or tarmac, or buildings enter the discussion. Just the surface of the oceans.
Now, for the part of your comment where you claimed that NOAA dropped ARGO data from their SST data, do you have a link to a NOAA webpage or to a paper written by a NOAA employee that verifies your claim? I’ve read the same thing here and at other blogs, but everytime I ask the blogger who posted the comment for the NOAA source, I hear nothing back. Zip. Nada. We document things here, so please document what you’ve written above. And please don’t cite another blog. Please cite NOAA or a paper by a NOAA employee.
Thank you.
Looks like it is on youtube.
Larry
REPLY: that is the trailer, not the full length movie – Anthony
Ooph! There were good and decent moments in this “doc,” and I think SM was at fairly accurately represented in there, but overall, it seemed just as unbalanced and stupidly manipulative as the all of the terrible catastrophic AGW-advocate “documentaries” out there. I don’t know if I represent the majority of “skeptics” or “luke-warmers” out there, but I had hoped for something different.
In my opinion, after wondering why the movie was drawing out the DDT thing (and I’m in very close agreement with the movie’s portrayal of that issue, though I think the voluminous use of dated footage showing DDT being flooded into city streets, etc. was incredibly stupid, given what current in-domicile proposed uses of the chemical entail), the environmentalist in Uganda’s frank interviews and interaction with the native-African pro-ddt activist were some of the most powerful scenes in the documentary. But, whether or not that woman’s terribly offensive outlook on things represents the average environmental activist’s, I just don’t know how truly tightly it relates to the hard discussions of climate science and climate policy that take place on this blog, CA, Roger Pielke’s (both) blogs, the Blackboard, tAV, and so on, and should be taking place in the general sphere…
One more thing…I’ve worked in the mining industry at least part time for the last 10 years of my life, and it’s a family business, and I think I understand the average mining-related worker, and fully respect them, but I don’t think that Joe Miner is the best person to make the case for an anti-hysteria argument, as he was used for in this film…for reasons of bias, for reasons of (lack of) expertise, and for the basic reason that even though coal mining and power are providing jobs, if the science actually says that coal power CO2 actually was certainly going to destroy the world, then the loss of those jobs now would make sense in the long run…
In my humble rating, NEJW gets a D, C- at best..
I watched most of it, and I have a suggestion to all of you:
Ask a question from someone who lived during the 1930’s, and find out what exactly went on with the weather.
I found 1 person who remembers it. He told me (No. CA) it was terribly hot and very dry.
Why did he remember it?
He could never forget the locusts that came up (1934) and ate the hay in the fields. And what the locusts didn’t eat, the caterpillars finished off.
That was 1934. Long before C02 rose due to post WWII boom.
So, go find yourself someone who remembers the truly hot years, and pass on thier story.
I think NEJW tried to tread the fine line between information & emotionalism required to grab the public imagination. In general I think it straddled that line fairly well.
DaveE.
Smokey (14:05:58) : “I don’t think you [Scott Mandia] 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 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.”
One of the best apologias yet of the problem at hand, Smokey.
All worth repeating again.
I love your style of debate.
The AGW Religion is truly grasping for straws…
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I agree with DaveE….in that this was written for the general public…so emotionalism has to be high.
I still think, however, the general public can handle more information (and less emotion) than they gave.
Give it a B minus.
Hey…but at least its FAR better and more truthful than AN INCONVENIENT LIE!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I think the problem with these documentaries is that they’re formulaic, a la, Michael Moore style. Aimed to hook the audience with shock and awe.
For the viewers, being entertained sometimes takes priority to being informed and the films tend to preach to the converted anyway.
I’d like to see a film made by scientists, discussing the science. This would tend to be far less emotional and ambiguous, tending to avoid polemics and irrelevance.
Sure, it might not break the box office but it would become an instant future classic like many contemporary misunderstood works.
Question is, who would fund it?
I know that if Mr. Watts, McIntye and other wordpress ilk required funding for such an idea, I’d contribute.
The problem, savethesharks, is that being emotionally manipulative does no favors to the movement in the end.
Emotion always fades and facts come to light -always.
I give it an A…
Mike
Sam G: “I’d like to see a film made by scientists, discussing the science. This would tend to be far less emotional and ambiguous, tending to avoid polemics and irrelevance.”
Question is, who would fund it?
“I know that if Mr. Watts, McIntye and other wordpress ilk required funding for such an idea, I’d contribute.”
I would too.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I thought Richard Lindzen was outstanding as ever. If Chu had the political moral fiber to match his acumen in physics, Lindzen would be his right hand man.
I also thought that the best comment amongst the millions streaming in was “Reduce your government footprint”.
I’m imagining a host of minions scanning news articles ready to debunk this film.A couple of minions are on this blog.I see kyme has taken the line that coal miners are dumb,and cannot be relied on to understand the science.The science was well understood by all the intelligent beings who stated DDT must be banned,for the people who did not realise what intelligent science did to people in 3rd world countries,this film will be an eye-opener,and raise more disgust and ire against science.The awful part of the DDT story is that the scientists in America knew their people would not be at risk from a DDT ban,and didn’t care who died in 3rd world countries,excuse me if I’m indulging in emotionalism,so easy to let emotions cloud my judgement when I am not a logical clear thinking scientist.
Anthony,
Thanks for the alert. i enjoyed eatching the presentation. Unfortunately I missed some of the beginning since I didn’t check in at my favorite site in time.
I learned a new phrase: Big Environment.
The best description of AGW advocates yet.
I was disappointed to see the interminable middle section on DDT. It should be cut. Yes, it demonstrates how short-sighted and misguided movement environmentalists can be, and yes banning DDT was likely a mistake (though no mention is made of insect resistance), and yes Algore praises Rachael Carson, but it completely distracts from the critique of the Alarmists, and it may even turn off some who, while they may be dubious about ‘global warming’, are not convinced that DDT was harmless.
As for the presentation and production values, they were fair to middlin’, but much too episodic and fragmentary. We still need a film that will in a strong, coherent, and compelling way the argument that the core Alarmists are (a) scientifically mistaken, (b) deliberately misleading us, and (c) using the ‘global warming’ hoax to push a worldwide statist agenda that will lead to worldwide stagnation and a dreary future for everyone.
The Goracle is not above using cinematic propaganda to scare people. Neither should the Realists be.
Finally, the film lacked the focus of Algore’s movie: it needed a star, a voice, a Ronald Reagan or Charlton Heston to command the viewer’s attention and make the argument.
But all that said, I’m glad for the effort. It’s a start.
/Mr Lynn
I’d grade the movie a B- and call it helpful.
NAS has their snout in the AGW money trough. Little wonder they would dis’ the petition project.
I read the project’s flagship report and found it worthwhile. I am basically in agreement with the petition statement. So I signed about a year ago.
I’m not a “climate scientist” my degreees are in geology (BA) and geochemistry (MS), I am a licensed geologist in Pennsylvania and Washington states. I have studied sea level closely enough to know how bogus that line of AGW evidence is. The NAS can go pound salt.
Noelene (19:47:05) :
Most miners I have met are smart people and very observant. They have to be. Thier lives depend on paying attention.
@ur momisugly Noelene (19:47:05)
I’m hoping and expecting we’re just having a misunderstanding here. I’m not out to discredit NEJW because I disagree with the general arguments it might have been trying to make; I’m just thoroughly disappointed with the poor tack it took at it, and the incredibly poor execution of it. If people who take issue with some of the bad science out there, or some the horrible policy options proposed to deal with climate change, are just resigned using agitprop in the same way the other side has for a while now, then this movie is great. But it’s not going to help anyone form genuinely cogent arguments against the current catastrophic-AGW zeitgeist…
As far as your claim that my comment “for reasons of (lack of) expertise” equates to “coal miners are dumb,” you couldn’t be more wrong. I’ve been around miners and drillers and loggers since I was 8 years old, I’m an ardent supporter of resource industries, and my both childhood and adult work experience in the field, more than anything else, has led me to make a strong distinction between education/expertise and raw intelligence. Some of my best adult friends as a kid were miners, and I don’t think any of them were “dumb”. But I think many of those I’ve met in my life would be the first to admit they wouldn’t have had the time or inclination or collegiate science background to really delve into this issue enough to hold a firm opinion on it. I may be being gracious and projecting there, as many might hold very strong opinions, but I feel like if you challenged them on it, they’d be honest about their limitations regarding this issue, as I try to be with mine (I’m an effing economist, not a climate scientist, so value my opinion accordingly).
All of that is kind of beside the point, anyway, as the miners only come into the picture when, for an unjustifiably long period of the movie, the filmmaker focused solely on the the fact that coal mining and power produces jobs and cheap power…if the science says with certainty that those jobs will create a global disaster in 40-50 years, then so what? Those jobs would need to be changed!
The thing is, no one disputes the fact that coal mining and power create jobs. The issue to be debated is whether those jobs should be sacked because of imminent CO2-caused disaster. Yet, the movie spends an interminable, tear-jerking amount of time supporting the uncontested assertion that coal mining/power provide present-day economic benefit…
I wonder if Steven Spielberg might direct the next one?
No, Johnny, there is no C02 Monster under your bed. See?
This movie is counter-propaganda, and thus propaganda itself. While I find myself agreeing with most of the stances taken in it, and appreciating the alternate perspective on these topics, it lacks the punch in the area it should have focused on… the total lack of scientific data to back up exagerrated prognostications of doom.
It does well for what it was seemingly supposed to do, which was a huge slap-in-the-political-face of the left who fancy themselves as advocates of the poor. It demonstrates the large numbers of poor who would most definitely be harmed by outright bans on various things. BTW, the scene early on with the two Americans giving boldface lies while trying to convince that Ugandan woman that she should not use DDT for fear of cancer was precious. That is precisely what the left needs right there, a look in the mirror that tells them, yes, your absurd jesus syndrome actually has repercussions when you are wrong, people actually die when you exagerrate fear for political purposes. This seems to be the real point of the movie, which means I like it for what it is.
However, it is not what I wanted it to be. I wanted it to be a point-counterpoint on what Global Warming advocates have been telling us would happen for nearly 20 years now, and how that hasn’t happened, and doesn’t seem like it will happen. That’s what I wanted it to be. What I got was a form of propagandizing that should only sting those politically attached to this monster, not make them tremble in their boots.
I was a bit disappointed in the film. It was very light on the science, and pretty heavy on Al Gore. I’m more interested in the science than the politics.
While I understand the appeal of the “salt of the earth” people pleading the case that their lifestyle is already fairly low-energy, and that they would be hard done by if the energy they rely on to live their lives were to become expensive or scarce, I think that is also entirely beside the point. If the AGW crowd is right, and these things must be done to avoid a putative disaster, then the sacrifice required registers a big “so what” with them – necessary to avert an even larger doomsday. Its not an argument that will change any minds.
Tom in Florida (06:12:31) :
“anna v (04:27:39) : “The argument should go a different way, not ethics, but logic. If our brains do not regulate our collective behavior, we will end up as one more extinct species . It is the human species that will be endangered if we do not husband the resources we need and control our population growth, not the rest of the biosphere in the end.”
Let’s take that one step further. Who will claim to be the marshalls of husbanding the resources and controling the population growth? The green movement. They see themselves as the saviors the world. They place themselves as gods above everyone else. Why? To control what everyone else thinks, says and does so that their vision of a perfect world is instituted. To what end? So that they can maintain power over everything, so they can live high off the hog at the expense of all others. Remember they say that everyone is equal but believe some are more equal than others. Tyranny hides it’s face behind many masks”.
Anna, Tom,
Every person specialized in demography knows that economic prosperity goes hand in hand with stabilizing population numbers.
If the greens really cared about this world they would help societies to get wealthy.
Instead they develop policies like the ban on DDT and the production of bio fuels seeding havoc in the third world.
Access to cheap energy is key.