Customer Reviews

Not Evil, Just Wrong

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

A thoughtful look at the current global climate change movement, the data involved, and the conclusions drawn. Significant time is spent on the likely repercussions of enacting climate change legislation. As you can imagine, it won't be pretty. The documentary also focuses on the harm caused by the anti-DDT campaign which has killed millions in impoverished nations. It's a common sense look at the issues - sure to be unpopular with the global warming blindly faithful. It's not a right-wing hate-fest either - just a well put together documentary that exposes some of the inconvenient truths that are ignored by those with an agenda. Best documentary I've seen in years and I watch plenty.

This documentary and all the truths conveyed within it - real truths, not made up ones - is certainly inconvenient for all the radical environmentalists who believe everything Al Gore has to say.

If you truly believe that global warming exists and is caused by human beings you should really watch this movie. (And remember, if you're not willing to watch it, you're just proving you're not open-minded about the matter.) The fact that one of Gore's biggest critics in this documentary was a founding member of Greenpeace should be a pretty good indicator of how radical, unreasonable, and left-of-center Al Gore and his gang really are.

Not Evil Just Wrong really makes it clear that left-wing radicals don't care about other human beings. They're in so much of a frenzy over global warming that they don't even realize the potential unintended consequences of their politically motivated actions.

If you're a global warming fan/enthusiast/nut/proponent/radical/believer/zealot/etc., then let me ask you a question: If you were told by teams of scientists all over the world as an absolute certainty that there is no evidence of man-made global warming - or any global warming at all - would you be happy? Or would you sulk and argue about it? If the evidence were incontrovertible and undeniable, would you accept it, or not? Put yourself in this hypothetical scenario. Would you be disappointed given this scenario in which there is no evidence of global warming? Would you be willing to accept you're wrong?

I know I'd accept global warming - the kind of global warming that might cause death and destruction like Al Gore would have you believe - as a truth, if it were, indeed, true. I'm a big believer in global warming and cooling cycles because that's what real science shows. Sometimes we're getting warmer and sometimes we're getting colder. These cycles occur over the course of centuries. Polar bears aren't a dying species like Al Gore claims. Their numbers are increasing. The polar ice cap isn't shrinking like Al Gore and Greenpeace claim. It's getting bigger. The hockey stick graph that "proves" man and industry have caused a sharp increase in global temperature over the last few decades isn't based on real data like Al Gore and other environmentalists claim. It's been proven fake, as you'll see in this movie.

What I like the most about this movie is that it's not made by some American right-wing lunatic with a political agenda here in the United States. A lot of the people interviewed are not Americans. This movie represents an international, multilateral collective voice of reason standing firm against what is potentially one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated.

If you think the title of the movie is sort of stupid, then you're not alone. I thought it was kind of dumb and unnecessarily confrontational until approximately 30 to 40 minutes into the movie. After the African guy said it, the title made a lot more sense.

an amazing piece of investigative and truthful journalism. the honesty of this film is awe-inspiring!

It was fair, but I was a little disappointed. I expected more facts and numbers, which I know does not appeal to most people like emotional content does, but I'm an engineer and the devil is in the details. Worth a look.

The video is good as far as it goes. Should have included more interviews with reputable scientists, more details. The video "Great Global Warming Scandal" does this, and is a better video. The title "Not Evil, Just Wrong" is misleading. It should have been titled, "Not Just Wrong, but Truly Evil". And Al Gore is the High Priest of this evil church.

This should be required for kids to watch in our schools to show how the global warming/environmentilist histeria has killed hundreds of millions of people by banning DDT.

Having survived Harold Camping's 2011 and 1994 "Raptures", Hale-Bopp in 1997, Robertson's 1982, Y2K, Phrygia 2nd Century, Nostradamus, et. al. it's getting kind of boring.

This book is excellent. It exposes the facts, and the reader is drawn to a clear conclusion.

After reading this book, I'm starting to prefer non-fiction.

And for those who love fiction, you still have Al Gore and his story writers to keep you entertained.

- Rod

I just got the DVD in the mail. I tested another DVD on my computer and it plays just fine, but the DVD of "Not Evil Just Wrong" won't play with Windows Media Player or with Realplayer. It would be nice to see how the "Hockey Stick" is not based on real data, as one reviewer claims. The three part BBC series "Earth: The Climate Wars" (available for free on Google Video) shows that several researchers have duplicated the "Hockey Stick" results with their own data. Although the different graphs don't all exactly match, it is clear that there was no "Midevil Warming Period". Also discredited is the notion that Sun spots account for the far right end of the "Hocky Stick". The sunspot data follow the temperature graph from 1920 to 1980, as the temperature and sunspots both go up and down together and then after 1980 the sunspot data trends downward while the temperature keeps going up. The initial reports that satellite data show no upward temperature trend is also false, as the researchers initially did not take into account the atmospheric drag and loss of altitude of the satellite over 10 years. When the data is corrected, a clear upward trend emerges.

There's pros and cons to this DVD. If you want to understand global warming science it's the last thing I'd recommend, but if you find the idea of global warming extremely inconvenient to your political persuasion or, worse yet, to your pocketbook, it's a must-buy.

So why won't this help you understand global warming? Why will this instead attempt to delude you? I'll use two examples, both addressed extensively by the filmmakers, to illustrate:

Michael Mann's "hockey stick" curve shows rising temperature data that indicates the planet is warming. If you're not familiar with global warming science, his curve has become sort of a benchmark in our understanding of what's going on with the planet's temperatures--this stick is a big deal. Now in this film a well-known climate change denier rebuts the stick's methodology by using a lot of scientific jargon and telling you Mann's a fraud--or worse. However, our "scientist" here inconveniently omits mentioning that after Mann's hockey stick data was first published and then widely attacked, the National Academy (the United States' most prestigious body of scientists) prepared a 160-page report to Congress that not only substantiated Mann's hockey stick, but actually added so many other sets of corroborating data that it ended up making the stick look more like a Sequoya. This is not exactly front-page news--in fact, this is OLD news. So how come the film ignores a very large group of our country's most pre-eminent scientists in favor of exactly one guy (who comes with the baggage of well-known questionable funding sources and well-known economic views)? That's a very disturbing question.

DDT in Africa is another huge topic in this "documentary," and the film's makers outdid themselves. The footage of sick and dying African children will break your heart. According to the film these children are infected with malaria, and there is absolutely no reason why they should have ever contracted malaria at all. It has an extensive treatment of the history of the DDT ban in the United States, popularized and propelled by Rachel Carson, who brought widespread attention to DDT pesticide use because it was killing birds and was also a threat to mammals. The film's message is that were it not for the American public being whipped into a state of foolish and ignorant hysteria by Carson, millions upon millions of African children would now be alive. This film's intent is to convince the unwitting layperson that Rachel Carson was far worse than a mere war criminal and that Americans failed miserably in humanitarian obligations. Simply put, this was--and still is--genocide. However, anyone who knows about DDT will immediately recognize that this film rather inconveniently fails to mention that although DDT was banned in the United States, for years AFTERWARDS it was still manufactured and was STILL AVAILABLE for use in Africa. So why did African countries stop using this supposedly life-saving pesticide--even though it was still available??? Because it had stopped working! See, the chemical was sprayed around enough that mosquitoes developed strains impervious to DDT. African countries could have continued spraying it for years--but people would have still contracted malaria because it no longer killed mosquitoes. African countries CHOSE to stop using the product because it was a complete waste of time and money, and if a pesticide is harmful to birds and mammals and otherwise does nothing, well, who would keep using it? So why did the film's makers not bother to mention that DDT had become ineffective? A second gargantuan and very deliberate omission.

I appreciate that if you're reading my review knowing nothing about climate change, you have no reason to believe a thing I'm saying. I don't see any harm in you starting with this film to learn the basic issues, but since the film's conclusions are all wrong--and are wrong deliberately--my suggestion is you supplement this purchase with two others. These will round out your education--you'll see all sides of this so-called "debate," AND you'll learn about the politics and the science. Consider watching this movie and then immediately read the brilliant "Merchants of Doubt" by Oreskes/Conway. This book is a fascinating recital of climate change political history and explains why the right persists in an orchestrated campaign to try to fool you, just like this film. Try this on for size: the same people who told us for decades that cigarettes don't cause cancer are now telling us there's no climate change. The same people! Two completely unrelated topics. (And what's really extraordinary is that these same people have attempted to delude the public on multiple topics--not just these two.) This book also addresses all the other climate change issues explained away by this DVD from the hockey stick to DDT. What I just said about DDT? That chapter alone has something like 168 footnotes to substantiate my poor summary of Oreskes/Conway. This book took five years to write and the research is meticulous. Oreskes/Conway are unflappingly polite, erudite, and brilliant logicians throughout--even the book's introduction should be considered for a Pulitzer. It is flatly the best history book I've ever read. Then follow this up with a terrific layman's description of the science in "Storms of my Grandchildren" by Dr. James Hansen, who is arguably the world's foremost climatologist. He doesn't dumb things down either--but it's so well-written if you pay a modicum of attention you'll get it.

But back to "Not Evil, Just Wrong." I do want to compliment its makers--and particularly the editors--on its superb craftsmanship and how it skillfully builds to a frightening and inexorable conclusion:

This film takes great care to interweave its non-science with compelling footage of a family of blue-collar struggling white Americans. You'll really like these people--honest and hard-working--salt-of-the-earth. The parents have it really tough but are struggling to better themselves, and more particularly their children. The message conveyed by their struggles is basically if the United States is not allowed to produce unbridled and unregulated amounts of coal (and everything else causing climate change), not only will these fine parents fail, but their children will absolutely not be able to play musical instruments, attend college, or make a better life for themselves. In fact, their fates will be catastrophic.

"Not evil, just wrong?" You will be led to understand this title is a gentle and understated description. The film's real point is that those who believe in science are both evil AND wrong. This is not an inference I conjured--this is stated explicitly. Heck, not in just the movie--it's even on the back of the dvd jacket. This movie's final message is that environmentalists seek the genocide of every impoverished citizen on Earth--not just starving people in Africa or in other poor countries--but even of all blue-collar struggling Americans, just like this fine family.

Of considerable interest also is the film goes far beyond positing that environmentalists seek only your basic run-of-the-mill non-discriminatory genocide. That genocide will have strong racial overtones, and black people should be particularly alarmed. Then--it gets into struggling white Americans being threatened. I assume the idea is that you're supposed to first be remotely alarmed that people in other nations or of other colors are at risk--and then you find out it could even happen to nice white people just like you!!

So you can see my review is mixed--on the one hand, if you want to learn about global warming science, this "documentary" is worse than useless. It contain more than misstatements--when someone deliberately sets out to fool you, we call that lying. Nonetheless, there's two types of people left for whom this film will have considerable appeal: If you have investments in oil, gas, or coal, and believe efforts to stem CO2 output will threaten your short-term lifestyle, you can pick up a lot of pointers which you'll be able to throw out to ignorant laymen. Of course, a high-school dropout who knows the science will be able to flatten you immediately, but it's unlikely you'll run into many of those. Second, to me it seems there are many Americans who believe in a completely unfettered and unregulated free market, and who then extend that to suppose that if CO2 output is ever addressed, those efforts will impinge upon their most basic economic beliefs. Now I'm not sure I can make that cause-and-effect jump because that's hardly a logical progression. Further, I confess I'm slanted to choosing my grandchildren's survival over a hypothetical set of economic constructs well on their way to tanking the planet, but if you can make those leaps, you're going to love this.

But let me end on an upbeat note. If you're looking for a global warming denial film, this one is much better than average--even slick. My hat is off to its makers--a superbly crafted piece of propaganda for anyone not interested in any facts whatsoever.

A film for people too stupid to read Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed: Revised Edition or Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming or any number (and it's a big number) of books showing how the Nobel Prize people knew their onions, when they awarded Vice President Gore the Nobel Prize.