Allison Bricker

Synopsis:

Global warming alarmists want Americans to believe that humans are killing the planet. But Not Evil Just Wrong, a new documentary by Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney, proves that the only threats to America (and the rest of the world) are the fl awed science and sky-is-falling rhetoric of Al Gore and his allies in environmental extremism.   The film warns Americans that their jobs, middle-class lifestyles and dreams for their children will be destroyed if the government rushes to judgment and imposes job-killing regulations on an economy already mired in recession.

Not Evil Just Wrong exposes the deceptions about global warming that scientists, politicians, educators and the media have been force-feeding the public for years, including fear-mongering about floods and dying polar bears. The documentary shows how environmentalists are pushing the same kind of anti-human propaganda that triggered a ban DDT and condemned millions of children to death by malaria, a story recounted in the documentary. Not Evil Just Wrong asks: Is carbon dioxide the new DDT and are we taking the same risks with our future?

Source(s):

Allison Bricker

“Not Evil Just Wrong” looks to debunk the myths promoted by environmental extremists.

UPDATE: Live Chat & Screening Stream – http://smargus.com/2071

A new documentary by Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney entitled, “Not Evil Just Wrong” looks to debunk the various pseudo-scientific notions presented by global-warming profiteers, such as former Vice-President Al Gore. A man who looks to foster fear of environmental catastrophe amongst people, spinning emotionally charged fables of dying polar bears in a manner all too similar to former President George W. Bush’s smoking-gun/ mushroom-cloud analogy prior to the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003.

The directors look to combat what they view as the environmental movement’s most powerful weapon, disinformation. Consequently, “Not Evil Just Wrong” charges headlong into debunking the claim of “scientific consensus” as well as the infamous “hockey stick graph” that attributed a supposedly unique increase in temperature during the 20th Century to the industrialization of human society. The film further tasks itself with disproving several of the environmental movement’s core talking points, from the hottest years on record myth, to the preposterous notion that Co2, i.e. oxygen to all plant life, is poison.

According to the group’s media contact Travis Swindle, the documentary will reach global saturation as a result of the thousands of planned DVD/theatrical premieres as well as the free internet streams set to commence on Sunday, October 18 at 8:00 p.m. EST. Both the documentary’s website, NotEvilJustWrong.com and several affiliates such as Andrew Breitbart’s collaborative blog project, BigHollywood.com, will host the free streams in order to provide a smooth viewing experience.

With traditional media networks continuing to hemorrhage viewers, the potential for a successful premiere of a feature-length documentary at least in part over the internet, may provide a glimpse to the thus far elusive new-media business model.

Allison Bricker

Social news site reddit.com interviews 14th Congressional District representative, Ron Paul. Questions were asked and voted upon by the reddit community, with the top ten questions asked during the course of the interview.

1. Kitanata: Dr. Paul, you have stated that you do not support Net Neutrality. Could you define Net Neutrality as you see it, then elaborate on what aspects of Net Neutrality you do not support and why? Thank you.




2. Fauster: Do you think that scientists are politically motivated with regard to issues of global warming and evolution? As a medical professional, you probably understand the value of deferring to specialists outside areas of your expertise. Nonetheless, you openly disagree with overwhelming scientific consensus in these two areas. While hardly anyone thinks Greenland will melt in twenty years, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe the effects of climate change will be lasting and severe in the next 50-100 years. With regard to evolution, almost all biologists, geologists, and physicists would say it’s better characterized as a law than a theory. Do you think the Bible provides a superior account of the origins of life on Earth, and thus claim a different source of expertise? Or rather, do you believe that scientific claims are grossly wrong, biased, or politically motivated?




3. SquirrelOnFire: Congressman Paul, The current health care legislation seems to be moving closer to the insurance industry’s ideal (minimal change + mandatory insurance) each day. What can be done to tip the balance of power in the congress away from lobbyists and towards the voters? Thank you for agreeing to speak with us.




4. Blackf1sh: Congressman Paul, Government investments in science and technology have historically yielded great returns. For example, it has been estimated[1] that, “technologies derived from quantum mechanics may account for 30% of the gross national product of the United States.” Money from the US government has led to the development of the internet[2] and a long list of NASA spin-off technologies have contributed to our daily lives[3].

   In contrast, the risk-averse private sector has little incentive and a poor track record for funding these types of long-term projects. Although the exploratory research in academic settings is often inefficient at achieving specific goals, it has the unique potential to yield unexpectedly amazing results on decade-long timescales.

   How can one justify reducing the budget for science and technology in spite of the quality of life and national security afforded by the developments from government-funded research?




5. Rightc0ast: Dr. Paul, Regarding the theory of evolution, I realize you have said you don’t feel the issue is important, but it’s been a topic discussed at great length at reddit, and other web sites. We’d really appreciate an answer to this.

   Allow me to clarify. Many people mistakenly confuse actual evolution with abiogenesis, or life coming from inanimate matter. Evolution is not a theory of creation. It is a theory encompassing genetic drift and selection, and describing changes in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Do you accept evolution in this regard as the foundation upon which nearly all biological knowledge is based, or do you truly believe change within species from generation to generation does not occur?




6. DoesMyKeyboardWork: Dr. Paul, What would a “return to sound currency” look like? Realistically, how would it play out? Would people exchange their dollars for a new gold/silver backed currency?

   As much as I agree with you (donated for the original money bomb, sticker on my car, wrote you in for the election), the defeatist in me thinks this is impossible and the entire system is eternally ruined. Thank you (and sorry for the pessimism)




7. TheHiveQueen: Dr. Paul, How do you reconcile the fact that you believe that the Federal Government has no place in Gay Marriage debate with your support of DOMA?




8. Playeren: Sir, should the government be able to keep secrets from the public at all? And Is ultimate freedom more important than ultimate security?




9. Chungkaishek: Dr. Paul, Given your well-established belief in the merits of the free market system, I’d like to know how you feel about the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA establishes restrictions and requirements on businesses, something I imagine goes against free market principles, yet it also ensures, for example, that a blind customer with a service animal such as a seeing eye dog will be treated like any other customer and not turned away for bringing a dog into a store.

   Should a free market decide which customers get service, or is this the responsibility of the federal government?




10. Jboeke: Dr. Paul, I’m trying to be a good libertarian, but I’m conflicted. I live in Phoenix, AZ and we just started up our light rail system earlier this year. I love it! I use it to commute to work and take it to the bar on weekends so I don’t drive drunk.

    But, light rail was a big public works project which took millions in taxpayer money from the three different cities and the Federal government. Unfortunately, I can’t imagine a scenario where something like light rail would have ever been built by the free market. How can I enjoy this project and still be a good libertarian?

Mandy Hyndman

Driving down any (they’re all designed to look basically the same) main strip in middle America at night, you are almost guaranteed enough illumination to safely turn off your headlights.  One after another the advertisements scream from the otherwise inanimate buildings upon which they are displayed.  Even in the dead of night you are implored to try the new quadruple-decker bacon 4-cheese burger or the triple-fried curly potato.  You are assured that, should some idiot rear-end you, the law offices of ‘Shyster and Shyster’ will quickly relieve them of their entire life savings.  Beneath virtual seas of sodium arc lighting you can feast your eyes on rows upon rows of brand new, shiny SUVs without fear of lurking salesmen.  Even on toll roads, where the horizon should be made of pitch, we are boxed in by billboards promising loose slots, diesel fuel, and sex, sex, sex!

Let us, just for now, put aside the obvious complaint that advertisement itself is poisonous and inescapable.  What about the power used to light each of these advertisements every single night?  When I hear about things like ‘pollution permits’ and future bioengineering schemes involving giant mirrors in space whose purpose is to deflect the heat of the sun, I have to wonder do we, at least here in the USA, simply possess no common sense?  Is it truly the state of things that the financial welfare of a business or corporation is paramount to conserving the resources which belong to each and every one of us?  One command that was essentially pounded into my head as a child was “Turn out the light when you leave the room!”  We can expect our children to understand this simple instruction, yet we allow our businesses to uselessly burn electricity every time it turns dark!  What possible benefit, aside from lining the pockets of the McDonald’s corporation and others like it, comes from lighting the signs and interiors of businesses which are closed for the night?

I say that as members of a local and, especially, global community, we demand that our businesses conserve energy as if it were a precious resource.  That includes cutting out after-hours illumination and advertisement, billboards, and anything else that has the sole purpose of getting into our brains and opening our wallets.  It’s time that we started taking reality seriously and reality is not pretty.   In a world where it is now a very real possibility that our grandchildren may have to migrate to the poles to escape the relentless heat that we will have caused, how can we sleep at night in the glow of all those lights?