A feature length documentary which shows how extreme environmentalism is damaging the lives of vulnerable people from the ban on DDT to the campaigns on Global Warming. Do not have MS Outlook Express installed on your computer but have to open EML file, do not worry. Just download free EML viewer and open the file instantly. Free EML viewer is a standalone utility, which has been designed to help users in opening EML. Not Evil, Just Wrong Ia_orig__runtime 6 minutes 31 seconds. Identifier NotEvil-JustWrong. Run time 6:31. Plus-circle Add Review. Reviews There are no reviews yet. Be the first one to write a review. DOWNLOAD OPTIONS download 1 file. 512KB MPEG4 download. Download 1 file. FLASH VIDEO download. NOT EVIL JUST WRONG exposes the fruitless lies of the self-interested, and the hypocritical alarmism of Al Gore and the other mean greens point by point. This documentary shows that the evidence that the environmentalists use is not just mistaken, but intentionally deceptive. Sep 25, 2012 - Not Evil Just Wrong Directed by Ann McElhinney, Phelim McAleer, 2009. In their provocative new documentary, filmmakers Phelim McAleer.
Oct 18, 2009 - Stream of Conscience: Not Evil Just Wrong to Stream Live, for Free, Over Internet. If so, RealPlayer or some Firefox downloading add-on.
Enjoy watching the full movie Not Evil Just Wrong online after the simple registration! Storyline Examines how extreme environmentalism is damaging lives of vulnerable populations in the developed and developing world, from the ban on DDT to the current campaigns on global warming. Examines how extreme environmentalism is damaging lives of vulnerable populations in the developed and developing world, from the ban on DDT to the current campaigns on global warming. Not Evil Just Wrong movie on: | DOWNLOAD Not Evil Just Wrong 2009
Preview
Watch online Not Evil Just Wrong 2009
|
aandcbolt
Karma192782
Grade
A+
great film29 April 2017
anyone who thinks global warming is not real must watch this film
JT
Karma1451500
Grade
B+
comment16 November 2012
Not Evil Just Wrong is rated highly by many and therefore worth watching. 16:11:12 12:21:44
Lizzy
Karma1433410
Not Evil Just Wrong Dvd
Grade
C+
Is it worth viewing?.26 November 2011
Is it worth viewing?.
JT
Karma1451500
Grade
C+
question05 November 2011
Has anyone seen this, would you recommend it.
See more Documentary movies
Bizarre E.R.(2008)Director: Amy Gairdner Cast: Freema Agyeman ... Download Bizarre E.R. Buy Bizarre E.R. The Price of Pleasure: Pornography, Sexuality & Relationships(2008)Once relegated to the margins of society, pornography has emerged as one of the most visible and profitable sectors of the... Cast: Joanna Angel ... Download The Price of Pleasure: Pornography, Sexuality & Relationships Buy The Price of Pleasure: Pornography, Sexuality & Relationships Hired Gun(2016)A documentary film about session and touring musicians that are hired by well established and famous bands and artists like... Cast: Kenny Aronoff ... Download Hired Gun Buy Hired Gun No Greater Love(2016)No Greater Love explores a combat deployment through the eyes of an Army chaplain, as he and his men fight their way through a... Download No Greater Love Buy No Greater Love WWII in HD(2009)Follow the lives of soldiers who lived Wold War II, through previously unseen color footage. Download WWII in HD Buy WWII in HD | Alaska State Troopers(2009)Unlike most state police agencies, AST is unique in that it performs duties unlike other similar agencies. Because Alaska has... Director: Brian Michel Cast: Marc Graue ... Download Alaska State Troopers Buy Alaska State Troopers The World at War(1973)A multi-volumed documentary mini-series, 'The World at War' covers the entire history of World War II from the causes of the... Download The World at War Buy The World at War Damiana Kryygi(2015)Download Damiana Kryygi Buy Damiana Kryygi Planet Earth II(2017)David Attenborough returns in this breathtaking documentary showcasing life on Planet Earth. Director: Elizabeth White Cast: David Attenborough ... Download Planet Earth II Buy Planet Earth II Planet Earth(2007)Emmy Award-winning, 11 episodes, 5 years in the making, the most expensive nature documentary series ever commissioned by the... Cast: David Attenborough ... Download Planet Earth Buy Planet Earth |
Porcupine Tree: Anesthetize(2010)Download Porcupine Tree: Anesthetize Buy Porcupine Tree: Anesthetize Alaska State Troopers(2009)Unlike most state police agencies, AST is unique in that it performs duties unlike other similar agencies. Because Alaska has... Download Alaska State Troopers Buy Alaska State Troopers WWII in HD(2009)Follow the lives of soldiers who lived Wold War II, through previously unseen color footage. Download WWII in HD Buy WWII in HD Metallica: Orgullo pasión y gloria. Tres noches en la ciudad de México.(2009)Download Metallica: Orgullo pasión y gloria. Tres noches en la ciudad de México. Buy Metallica: Orgullo pasión y gloria. Tres noches en la ciudad de México. The Killers: Live from the Royal Albert Hall(2009)Download The Killers: Live from the Royal Albert Hall Buy The Killers: Live from the Royal Albert Hall | Life(2009)David Attenborough's legendary BBC crew explains and shows wildlife all over planet earth in 10 episodes. The first is an... Download Life Buy Life Gokiburi(2009)Kiyoshi's work as a pest control man leads him to a mysteriously deserted house. Then on his 20th birthday he receives a letter... Download Gokiburi Buy Gokiburi America's Best Dance Crew: Top 10 Performances of All Time(2009)A retrospective special on ABCD featuring the top performances to date. Hosted by Randy Jackson and featuring interviews from... Download America's Best Dance Crew: Top 10 Performances of All Time Buy America's Best Dance Crew: Top 10 Performances of All Time A History of Horror with Mark Gatiss(2010)Download A History of Horror with Mark Gatiss Buy A History of Horror with Mark Gatiss Curious George: A Very Monkey Christmas(2009)Download Curious George: A Very Monkey Christmas Buy Curious George: A Very Monkey Christmas |
A.N.31 August 2013
The title of this pseudo-documentary is ironic, since it implies that people who want to prevent human overpopulation and greed from suffocating our only life support system might be 'evil.' Anti environmentalists who see pollution as excusable are the truly evil ones. The right-wing, religious, Cornucopian view of the world forgets that agencies like the EPA were created because industries would not voluntarily stop polluting. A film like this would have gotten no traction in the late 60s and early 70s, and deserves none today.
Modern conservatives bask in a fantasy world where they assume environmental regulations are unnecessary to mitigate human overpopulation and the cannibalization of nature to support a single species at the expense of others. They 'forget' all the earlier battles fought to protect nature from their own denier ilk, and they simply ignore climate science and worst-case warming scenarios.
You won't find any accurate coverage in this film of CO2's huge impacts on 'radiative forcing,' the key factor in trapping heat over time. CO2 controls about 80% of radiative forcing, per NASA and other sources. Conservatives throw around the term 'trace gas' without the context of CO2's potency. They harp on water vapor as the most powerful greenhouse gas, but water vapor is in constant flux while CO2 lingers far longer in the atmosphere and modulates the net warming effect. Without CO2, most of the world would be frozen. How can anyone think it's an insignificant gas if they really understand what it does?
The film is full of appeals to 'ordinary people vs. the elites' but the former often have no understanding of the science. The message is politicized, not truly investigated on its scientific merit. The main tactic is to create doubt about the climate consensus without ever proving that doubts are valid. It's the same old denialism repackaged with a not so clever title.
I find it especially ironic that these filmmakers claim to be concerned about the poor, downtrodden masses who are already suffering from climate change in low-lying areas and marginal farming regions. They will be the worst hit, so stop playing them as 'victims of environmentalism.' The real good guys are not science-denying capitalist zealots.
Modern conservatives bask in a fantasy world where they assume environmental regulations are unnecessary to mitigate human overpopulation and the cannibalization of nature to support a single species at the expense of others. They 'forget' all the earlier battles fought to protect nature from their own denier ilk, and they simply ignore climate science and worst-case warming scenarios.
You won't find any accurate coverage in this film of CO2's huge impacts on 'radiative forcing,' the key factor in trapping heat over time. CO2 controls about 80% of radiative forcing, per NASA and other sources. Conservatives throw around the term 'trace gas' without the context of CO2's potency. They harp on water vapor as the most powerful greenhouse gas, but water vapor is in constant flux while CO2 lingers far longer in the atmosphere and modulates the net warming effect. Without CO2, most of the world would be frozen. How can anyone think it's an insignificant gas if they really understand what it does?
The film is full of appeals to 'ordinary people vs. the elites' but the former often have no understanding of the science. The message is politicized, not truly investigated on its scientific merit. The main tactic is to create doubt about the climate consensus without ever proving that doubts are valid. It's the same old denialism repackaged with a not so clever title.
I find it especially ironic that these filmmakers claim to be concerned about the poor, downtrodden masses who are already suffering from climate change in low-lying areas and marginal farming regions. They will be the worst hit, so stop playing them as 'victims of environmentalism.' The real good guys are not science-denying capitalist zealots.
14 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Worth a lookPermalink
Not Wrong Just Different
daragh2719 March 2010
As someone who is neither pro nor anti-climate change, I feel I can listen to the arguments for and against the case of man-made climate change with an open mind but, as Richard Dawkins says, not so open minded that my brain falls out.
When it comes to controversial subject matters such as man-made climate change, I, personally, prefer to listen to a debate, with both sides represented, than a, more or less, one sided documentary.
However, I'd heard many good things about this documentary and, as it's made by two Irish journalists and fellow citizens of mine, I was that bit more intrigued.
The Good: There are some excellent scientific counter arguments presented and there are numerous 'big claims' made by pro-climate change heavy weights, most notably Al Gore, that are either discredited or exposed as sensationalist non-truths or, at the very least, exaggerations of the facts.
There seems to be a, somewhat, credible line-up of contributors on hand to lend their views, scientific know how or experience in this field.
I'm sure that, if there were a direct answer to this documentary from the 'pro' side, there would probably be an equal amount of statements and 'facts' discredited in the, sometimes, mud-slinging arena, that is climate change..
The bad: I'm not a scientist, so I'm not in a position to discredit or, indeed, endorse the 'facts' in this documentary, so I won't go there.
While the impact on the 'average' family and, of course, those who are already impoverished, is certainly something that needs to be emphasized, as cheap fossil fuels may be replaced with more expensive 'greener' forms, along with carbon taxes being introduced by many governments, I felt that the time dedicated to 'the average middle American family' was far too long.
This movie clocks in at just under 90 minutes with approximately 25-30 minutes taken up by an overweight women and her malnourished husband who are both, by the own admission, not very well educated.
Not being very well educated is certainly not a crime but, in a documentary supposedly exposing the bad science of the Al Gore led pro-climate change group, a family employed in the industrial sector explaining that they 'couldn't pay for their new wooden floors' and 'entertainment systems' if it weren't for their industrial jobs and how they're 'living their American dream', isn't science.. or even a valid argument, in the grand scheme of things. Of course, the impact on family's standard of living is a very important topic that should not be swept under the carpet but 10 minutes would have been sufficient in this particular documentary.
In my opinion, I feel it takes away a little creditability from what is, otherwise, a very fine piece of work.
So, if you're like me and still not completely sold on either side, this is well worth a look.
When it comes to controversial subject matters such as man-made climate change, I, personally, prefer to listen to a debate, with both sides represented, than a, more or less, one sided documentary.
However, I'd heard many good things about this documentary and, as it's made by two Irish journalists and fellow citizens of mine, I was that bit more intrigued.
The Good: There are some excellent scientific counter arguments presented and there are numerous 'big claims' made by pro-climate change heavy weights, most notably Al Gore, that are either discredited or exposed as sensationalist non-truths or, at the very least, exaggerations of the facts.
There seems to be a, somewhat, credible line-up of contributors on hand to lend their views, scientific know how or experience in this field.
I'm sure that, if there were a direct answer to this documentary from the 'pro' side, there would probably be an equal amount of statements and 'facts' discredited in the, sometimes, mud-slinging arena, that is climate change..
The bad: I'm not a scientist, so I'm not in a position to discredit or, indeed, endorse the 'facts' in this documentary, so I won't go there.
While the impact on the 'average' family and, of course, those who are already impoverished, is certainly something that needs to be emphasized, as cheap fossil fuels may be replaced with more expensive 'greener' forms, along with carbon taxes being introduced by many governments, I felt that the time dedicated to 'the average middle American family' was far too long.
This movie clocks in at just under 90 minutes with approximately 25-30 minutes taken up by an overweight women and her malnourished husband who are both, by the own admission, not very well educated.
Not being very well educated is certainly not a crime but, in a documentary supposedly exposing the bad science of the Al Gore led pro-climate change group, a family employed in the industrial sector explaining that they 'couldn't pay for their new wooden floors' and 'entertainment systems' if it weren't for their industrial jobs and how they're 'living their American dream', isn't science.. or even a valid argument, in the grand scheme of things. Of course, the impact on family's standard of living is a very important topic that should not be swept under the carpet but 10 minutes would have been sufficient in this particular documentary.
In my opinion, I feel it takes away a little creditability from what is, otherwise, a very fine piece of work.
So, if you're like me and still not completely sold on either side, this is well worth a look.
12 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Terrible film that does not help to add to the climate debatePermalink
avoux7 June 2017
Warning: SpoilersNot Evil Just Wrong, created by Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer, is a documentary created as a response to Al Gore's Oscar winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth. In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore claims that the temperature is rising, humans are the cause of it because of the CO2 we are emitting, and that we should do something about it. The documentary Not Evil Just Wrong is intended to represent the other side of the climate change debate, and discredit Al Gore's claims in his documentary. While the film succeeds at muddying the debate, it does not make any convincing arguments based in science and fails to actually inform its audience, which is why I give it a 1 ½ out of 5 stars.
This film fails to achieve its goal of giving an alternative solution to the climate crisis but it does succeed in clouding the discussion and confusing its intended audience about the issue. I can tell the film does not aim to inform the audience because it purposely contains contradictory statements and vague assumptions without evidence. They usually bring up Al Gore's arguments then either use unrelated or untrue political arguments instead of scientific arguments, or pull a bait and switch and attack something else, trying to tie it to the argument. All three main points have issues with consistency and accuracy as well, which helps muddying the waters. The discussion on climate data accuracy contradicts itself multiple times. Some experts claim that the icecaps are retreating because of natural temperature oscillation, then others claim that the icecaps are actually growing. Patrick Moore discuss how the temperature is not at its hottest currently and the temperature is not warming, then claims that there is warming happening and it is good for us. The experts also uses red herring, ad hominem and strawman arguments in their discussion in this section, such as claiming that the data from 1932 that was incorrectly calculated completely discredits the whole argument. They couple these arguments with scenes of children repeating environmentalist talking points in an effort to make the arguments sound naive. The creators of the film claim to have the goal of providing an alternative look and set of solutions relative to Al Gore's film, but this technique they are using fails to do that. The children are not giving any alternatives or solutions, the experts discussing the issues brought up by the children are misleading the audience with false alternatives, and are also not providing any solutions. The goal I believe the film had, muddying the debate so people would not know what to believe and lose interest, does benefit from this technique since it confuses the audience. During the malaria discussion the film the film plays to people's emotions by attacking environmentalists' character. They claimed that environmentalists overwhelmingly were anti-human juxtaposed with the scenes of struggling families from third world countries in an attempt to blame the environmentalists for their misfortunes. This is very misleading on many fronts. One is the assertion of environmentalists being anti human. They do this without any data to back it up, just anecdotes about experts who disagree with them. Another misleading aspect is that the actions of the environmentalists did not cause the issues they are pointing to. When they claim that Rachel Carson is responsible for millions of African deaths, they fail to mention that DDT was never banned for malaria control and that countries that stopped using DDT for malaria control did so because it was no longer effective in controlling malaria. They also claim that Rachel Carson is a discredited scientist which is blatantly false. The one and only valid point I believe that the film brought up well is the discussion on a baseline for energy needs. With the technology of the time and the expected advancement of technology projected in the ten years that Al Gore called for, the energy output of 100 percent renewable energy would not consistently meet the energy baseline required. The film quickly went back on track to getting things wrong when they claimed that because of this we cannot have any change or reduction. One major example where it could work is increasing the efficiency of new cars that are bought. Transportation creates a significant about of greenhouse gasses and if the cars on the road were much more efficient than air quality will be greatly benefited and the economy will not implode. The final sin this movie made was present in all three points, pitting normal Americans against the elites. They ridiculed Al Gore for using a private jet to get around, portrayed him and many other environmentalists as out of touch and uncaring, and they falsely claimed that the average American was the victim of environmental extremism. This is done quite well by the film and allows them to replace an actual argument against Al Gore with a political sentiment of us versus them. It is unfortunately effective politically and at muddying the debate, but is very poor at actually informing people about an issue. This film is considered a documentary but at its best it is propaganda. The film is contradictory, fails at informing the audience, and obscures the debate and science in a hope that people will lose interest and not engage. I believe that the film has a near perfect title, but with a few edits I believe that title could be used to describe itself rather than Al Gore. Just evil and wrong.
This film fails to achieve its goal of giving an alternative solution to the climate crisis but it does succeed in clouding the discussion and confusing its intended audience about the issue. I can tell the film does not aim to inform the audience because it purposely contains contradictory statements and vague assumptions without evidence. They usually bring up Al Gore's arguments then either use unrelated or untrue political arguments instead of scientific arguments, or pull a bait and switch and attack something else, trying to tie it to the argument. All three main points have issues with consistency and accuracy as well, which helps muddying the waters. The discussion on climate data accuracy contradicts itself multiple times. Some experts claim that the icecaps are retreating because of natural temperature oscillation, then others claim that the icecaps are actually growing. Patrick Moore discuss how the temperature is not at its hottest currently and the temperature is not warming, then claims that there is warming happening and it is good for us. The experts also uses red herring, ad hominem and strawman arguments in their discussion in this section, such as claiming that the data from 1932 that was incorrectly calculated completely discredits the whole argument. They couple these arguments with scenes of children repeating environmentalist talking points in an effort to make the arguments sound naive. The creators of the film claim to have the goal of providing an alternative look and set of solutions relative to Al Gore's film, but this technique they are using fails to do that. The children are not giving any alternatives or solutions, the experts discussing the issues brought up by the children are misleading the audience with false alternatives, and are also not providing any solutions. The goal I believe the film had, muddying the debate so people would not know what to believe and lose interest, does benefit from this technique since it confuses the audience. During the malaria discussion the film the film plays to people's emotions by attacking environmentalists' character. They claimed that environmentalists overwhelmingly were anti-human juxtaposed with the scenes of struggling families from third world countries in an attempt to blame the environmentalists for their misfortunes. This is very misleading on many fronts. One is the assertion of environmentalists being anti human. They do this without any data to back it up, just anecdotes about experts who disagree with them. Another misleading aspect is that the actions of the environmentalists did not cause the issues they are pointing to. When they claim that Rachel Carson is responsible for millions of African deaths, they fail to mention that DDT was never banned for malaria control and that countries that stopped using DDT for malaria control did so because it was no longer effective in controlling malaria. They also claim that Rachel Carson is a discredited scientist which is blatantly false. The one and only valid point I believe that the film brought up well is the discussion on a baseline for energy needs. With the technology of the time and the expected advancement of technology projected in the ten years that Al Gore called for, the energy output of 100 percent renewable energy would not consistently meet the energy baseline required. The film quickly went back on track to getting things wrong when they claimed that because of this we cannot have any change or reduction. One major example where it could work is increasing the efficiency of new cars that are bought. Transportation creates a significant about of greenhouse gasses and if the cars on the road were much more efficient than air quality will be greatly benefited and the economy will not implode. The final sin this movie made was present in all three points, pitting normal Americans against the elites. They ridiculed Al Gore for using a private jet to get around, portrayed him and many other environmentalists as out of touch and uncaring, and they falsely claimed that the average American was the victim of environmental extremism. This is done quite well by the film and allows them to replace an actual argument against Al Gore with a political sentiment of us versus them. It is unfortunately effective politically and at muddying the debate, but is very poor at actually informing people about an issue. This film is considered a documentary but at its best it is propaganda. The film is contradictory, fails at informing the audience, and obscures the debate and science in a hope that people will lose interest and not engage. I believe that the film has a near perfect title, but with a few edits I believe that title could be used to describe itself rather than Al Gore. Just evil and wrong.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Environmentalists or hypocrites?Permalink
TheBlueHairedLawyer1 September 2014
Warning: SpoilersI love pollution and don't care what I do to the environment, and when people see me littering or spraying pesticides, they shout at me and start their hippie lectures, it's highly pathetic and annoying. If environmentalists are these peace-loving people, why do they always assume violence is the answer and that acting like a know-it-all will save the planet? As this film explains, not only are they fighting for a lost cause, but thanks to many of these loud-mouthed hippies who need to be shut up, the world is becoming a failure. It is unbiased and presents facts before opinions, while also showing how businesses and industries are failing and resorting to moving overseas, where they can afford to cheaply manufacture their products by hiring workers for next-to-nothing. Being an eco-sinner myself I can certainly say I'd be more than happy to have a factory or toxic waste dump directly next-door to me. Environmentalism is just a result of induced paranoia and propaganda provided by politicians who are far more corrupt than any businessman or factory owner could ever be.
If you are an environmentalist, consider this... will you be so sure you have the truth when you've been laid off and are living on the street because the factory or business you were so quick to shut down for polluting was the place feeding your family and paying your bills? Don't just pass this movie by because you think you know everything, do the smart thing and watch it with an open mind, you'll be very surprised at how much you don't know. It is not a conspiracy theory film nor is it made by uninformed bored idiots, it's an honest film and a lot of time and research went into diving deeper into such a huge issue.
If you are an environmentalist, consider this... will you be so sure you have the truth when you've been laid off and are living on the street because the factory or business you were so quick to shut down for polluting was the place feeding your family and paying your bills? Don't just pass this movie by because you think you know everything, do the smart thing and watch it with an open mind, you'll be very surprised at how much you don't know. It is not a conspiracy theory film nor is it made by uninformed bored idiots, it's an honest film and a lot of time and research went into diving deeper into such a huge issue.
4 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Permalink
Not Evil Just Wrong
The plot thickensrndiadem10 October 2018
When was Florida supposed to be under water according to Al Gore's 1990's prediction???
Watch Not Evil Just Wrong
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Permalink