jump to navigation

Not Evil Just Wrong, the true cost of global warming hysteria October 24, 2008

Posted by honestclimate in Videos.
Tags: , , ,

Not Evil Just Wrong, the true cost of global warming hysteria

Not Evil Just Wrong is the film Al Gore and Hollywood don’t want you to see. It reveals the true human cost of Global Warming hysteria.

Not Evil Just Wrong shows how Global Warming alarmism and the tax increases that go along with it are going to increase costs for working families during one of the worst recessions in living memory.

Al Gore and his allies want to ban fossil fuels in the developed world. This would devastate the American economy and drive jobs to India and China.

Premiers 18 October 2009, click below link for more details

Click below link for more details


About these ads


1. subumbrafloreo - April 14, 2009

When is the film coming out? All I could find was ‘later this year’. Can’t wait to see it! Check out ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870 . Also, check out ‘The Obama Deception’ at: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=new+world+order&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#q=the+obama+deception&hl=en&emb=0 . Also, check this out: http://www.ifc.com/new-world-order/about-the-show.php

2. M. Neill - April 16, 2009

Looking forward to it’s release. I never imagined I’d see the day when bad science would be used as a political tool, especially on such a grand scale. Found out about this movie on icecap.us.

Mike N.

3. brojabber - April 24, 2009

I’m rehashing this comment I made on a National (Financial) Post Story about this movie (http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=1486219):

If, as NASA (et al), would have us believe it has been man over the past 60 or so years causing the hole in the ozone layer and is the major contributor to global warming, I have some concerns about them (NASA). Earth is sometimes called (by the global warming debunkers) a “closed system” and therefore (they say) cannot be affected by humanity’s activities. Perhaps NASA is correct, the Earth is not a closed system – we have tones of extra-terrestrial material added each year (shooting stars, cosmic particles etc.) after all.
Is it perhaps possible that they (NASA) have also considered the hundreds upon hundreds of rocket-fuelled punctures of our atmosphere by them and other, similar agencies as a problem? Perhaps their own activities are a more direct cause of our atmospheric problems then they are letting on. I think Mr. Gore should spearhead a drive to put a moratorium on space rocketry…
On a related, but slightly ‘old’ piece of anecdotal evidence of global climate change; I happened to be watching a documentary on the exploits of Eric the Red. You know the guy…(the naughty) Viking explorer, expelled from Norway, then expelled from Iceland who made a little expedition further west – eventually discovering(?) Greenland.
The documentary described the ‘be-horned’ Eric’s attempt to find a good place to set up home, and told how he ambled up a fjord on the west side of Greenland and found a suitable settlement site. The commentator lamented on how difficult this site is to travel to today for, as he described, Greenland was a lot warmer in those days and so made the journey up the fjord possible all year round.
Damn those Vikings – it must have been their gaseous caribou causing the global warming back then.

4. thisguy - April 30, 2009

Wow I love how everyone thinks that combating global warming means that we have to go back to a freaking horse and buggy. That will never happen; technology will only get better and cleaner. Al gore isn’t out too take away everyone’s job by shutting factories this is a ridiculous video that you are all so happy to embrace because you don’t have your conscience nagging at you. Al gore becomes your scapegoat for that bad feeling that you had for driving a gas guzzling hummer because he said that might be bad. Global warming is just a theory but pollutants that are toxic to people are real. So I say everybody just shut up and do their part to reduce emissions and support regulation.

5. thatgirl - May 7, 2009

i agree with thisguy. This video should not be an excuse for everyone to think that it’s okay for them to keep driving their fossil-fuel vehicles. We dont have to pick between people and animals, the jobs lost in the car factories would be replaced by new electric and hydrogen-powered cars. Hasn’t anyone heard of what Ford did? No? Ford closed down a major SUV manufacturing plant, and reopened it as an all-electric-powered-car manufacturing plant. Yes people lost their jobs, but they got them right back! And then some more people got jobs that didn’t have them before! The gasoline and pharmeceutical companies are ruling the world; everything revolves around gasoline and pills nowadays! I garauntee you that gasoline companies would support this movie. and when the guy in the movie says that “it wouldn’t hurt the planet to warm up a little” he obviously doesn’t know ANYTHING about what he’s saying! Little do people know, that global warming would actually trigger an early ice age. (I say ‘early’ because ice ages occur naturally every 10,000 years, so we are heading towards one anyways, it would just be caused earlier, which would mess up nature’s schedule) If the planet warms up enough, the ice caps WILL melt, and whether sea level rises is besides the point, because the icecaps are made of FRESH WATER, the sea is made up of SALT WATER. The north-atlantic current, which brings warm water and air to ALL of us that aren’t right on top of the equator, would stop. It is because of the fact that the ocean and seas are SALT WATER that this current exists. The salt water is warmed at the equator, and brings that warmth back with it. when the water has spread it’s warmth and cools down, it becomes heavier and sinks to the bottom, where it flows back to the equator and heats up again. When it heats up, it rises to the surface and the cycle repeats. (this makes even more sense when you remember that the ocean is coldest at the bottom). Now if you where to add extremely large amounts of FRESH WATER to this current, it would not work effectively enough to keep flowing and would stop. this means that most of north america and europe would freeze over. (means ice age) Furthermore, the ice caps would not even have to melt for this to happen. Another extremely large body of ice lies much closer to the north-altlantic current. Greenland. If Greenland were to suffer from the effects of ‘global warming’ and the ice were to melt (which it already has started to) then all that fresh water would flow straight into the north-atlantic current. And it would be a lot easier for Greenland to melt than the ice caps, both of which have already been melting at alarming rates for years. This process might greatly sped up by the fact that both greenland and the ice caps are both suffering from the numerous and constant formations of moulins, which I highly recomend you all look up on the internet, and where melted ice (fresh water) cuts through to underneath large bodies of ice and then spreads underneath, causing the large body of ice to be lubricated, which causes the body of ice to start the shift quickly towards the lowest point of ground (gravity’s pull), which is usually THE OCEAN. In closing I say that everything I have said can be looked up if doubt it’s accuracy, and watch out for the media, do not except the newest theory, just because everyone else does, or because it SEEMS to make sense. The media use rhetoric to make everything sound like the truth. So do car salesmen. They both lie on a regular basis.

6. thatgirl - May 7, 2009

( BTW sorry if I sounded like a know-it-all, but THATS the TRUTH)

7. JAXON X - May 7, 2009


‘He who controls carbon controls life. It is a bureaucrat’s dream to control carbon dioxide’

“Al Gore wants to become the first carbon billionaire. And he is poised to do it. [...] As much as Gore’s made now, it is going to be piker league compared to what he is going to make in five years if all these new carbon trading mandates go through. [...] He who controls carbon controls life. It is a bureaucrat’s dream to control carbon dioxide and Washington is a field of dreams right now.”

Full Transcript Below:

8. Mambo Bananapatch - June 3, 2009

> Global warming is just a theory…So I say everybody just shut up and do their part to reduce emissions and support regulation.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen the intellectual bankruptcy and naked ambition of green fascism expressed so clearly before, particularly by one of its adherents.

9. lara - June 4, 2009

No, Thatgirl, you don’t know the truth and your scientific education is non-existent. It really would not be a big deal if we did warm up. It used to be so warm that Eric the red found grassy meadows and a temperate environment friendly to farming in greenland around 950 AD, which is why it was named GreenLand, it was green. Now it is much colder and greenland is mostly covered with ice and the world has amazingly not ben destroyed.

10. co2islife - June 16, 2009

We are working on a Global Warming documentary, and what I find most interesting is how poorly the climate scientists defend this nonsense. Here are a couple of videos that show just how poorly even IPCC scientists defend this junk science.




11. co2islife - June 22, 2009

We have some more videos posted like those above. These are focused just on the debates and Q&A sessions. They are worth a watch.

12. BAT Svensson - July 30, 2009

“If the planet warms up enough, the ice caps WILL melt”

True, and IF the planet warms up enough all water will boil ways from earth as well.

“The north-atlantic current… is because of the fact that the ocean and seas are SALT WATER that this current exists.

It is, of course, as most people living at lakes knows the wind that is the major driver of water circulation. When it comes to large assemblies of water as the oceans the major causes of circulation are solar heat, winds and gravity.

Gravity makes water move vertically. The property of “saltiness” explains how water raises and sink in the ocean deep layers (density driven circulation below 400 meter) but it does not explain why the north-south circulation exists. Winds on the other hand make the water move horizontal…

“When it heats up, it rises to the surface and the cycle repeats.”

Would you mind be a bit more specific on where this heat is supposed to come from?

Because there is no way according to current known physics laws how solar heat can jump down a half kilometer into the ocean and create this circulation. Unless you want to claim that the deep layer interacts with the top 400 layer and transport heat form the inside of the earth to the surface layer and then magical make this create some kind of horizontal water circulation.

13. 1 in 100 billion - August 9, 2009

i love the guy who sez that hundreds of billions of people will die, hopefully i get to watch

14. Common Sense - October 18, 2009

Putting the whole global warming debate aside, I’m sure everybody can agree we are poisoning our environment in many worse ways other than CO2 …which by the way isn’t a pollutant but naturally occuring gas that happens to be one of the basic elements needed for plant life. If we are going to spend countless billions let’s look at where those dollars are best spent to improve our surroundings to include our land and water.

15. Malcolm - October 19, 2009

Our politicians are taking control of ours , and future generations lives, by passing laws which will financially cripple the majority.Our children and their children will finally curse those who have harnessed us with this wholly unwarranted tax which will not in any way change the ways of nature .

16. KC - November 18, 2009

The whole philosophy behind the radical environmental movement (or propaganda) is that human is the cause of all the problems, that they are the cancer in the world as they are all polluters – we ought to get rid of most of them.
Those guys never care about the real scientific data (which will make them look stupid), or care about the environment (Al Gore’s power bill is 10x more than average family, plus the frequent flying). They just use pseudo science + scary tactic + huge propaganda helped by ultra liberal politicians and media to brainwash people.
Like Hitler said, if you tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough, the people will believe it.

17. Mark Winter - January 12, 2010

Repeatedly I read/hear words like hypothesis, consensus and modeling amongst scientific experts regarding their stance on global warming. None of the above words have meaning to hard fact.[ let us see what these words mean according to my thesaurus] hypothesis (synonym) supposition (synonym) assumption (synonym) GUESS – consensus (synonym) COMPROMISE [dictionary meaning5th] to put oneself or another in a DISHONORABLE POSITION – modeling (synonym) representation (synonym) story (synonym) FAIRY TALE. If the scientists who have generated the global warming argument are truthful and believe honestly that they are right then full disclosure of all materials need to be given to as many scientists & experts all over the world so they can reproduce & agree on the modelled out comes, if they don’t people like me will consider that a fairy tale based on a guess reached via a compromise comes from those who are dishonourable, & this is something I can neither believe or trust in considering what the politicians are proposing amongst them selves to do to supposedly fix this Mêlée, & have the rest of us saps pay for the whole shebang, you see it will not be the rich or powerful who will suffer make no mistake about that, just look at the recent world financial crisis it was/is us tax payers/saps who are paying for it to be fixed, & what is happening they carry on as though nothing has happened perhaps with a slap on the wrists possibly, & they are all laughing to the bank (sorry about the pun). This thing with global warming if we get this wrong based on doggy input data & poor science then all of us tax payers/saps will FUBARED.

18. Simmon Li - September 12, 2010

At one point in this movie, they argue that DDT should be unbanned because it kept mosquito populations (therefore malaria) under control. It doesn’t address the actual merits of DDT. They simply argue that DDT was responsible for a reduction in malaria (and while that is probably true), we have better ways to deal with malaria than the reintroduction on DDT – DDT reduced not just mosquito populations, but many other helpful species’ populations). The premise of the argument is absurd.

They also attack the character of a Dr. Stewart, a “prominent climate scientist”, but don’t really talk about why his data or research is invalid. They basically try to poison the well, and don’t actually address his assertions or conclusions.

I stopped watching after these two segments, because I could sense the documentary had nothing else to offer other than logical fallacies. I will be watching all of it to get their full message. Over all, an interesting/entertaining watch, but it lacks substance, and I find that the credibility is suspect.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers

%d bloggers like this: