Right Online interview: Not Evil, Just Wrong
posted at 4:45 pm on August 15, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I had looked forward to interviewing Phelim McAleer at the Right Online conference about his new film, Not Evil Just Wrong: The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria, since I interviewed him at CPAC about his efforts on the documentary at that point. This time, though, Phelim’s co-director and wife Ann McElhinney joined us to discuss the film, the radical environmental movement, and how Rachel Carson changed the world — to the detriment of tens of millions of people who have needlessly died through the banning of DDT.
They screened the film for Right Online participants last night, and I’ll write a review tomorrow or Monday in more detail. Instead of reading a review, though, watch this lengthy interview which started as a 15-minute commitment and kept going as everyone was enjoying the conversation so thoroughly. The two are delightfully open and honest about their contempt for radical environmentalism, elitists, and hypocrites. They also explain their design for a worldwide premier that will take place in the homes of people all across America — and how you can participate.
Here’s the trailer for the film:
Update: Here’s the history of malaria in the US, to which we refer during the interview, as told by the CDC:
Malaria Control in War Areas (MCWA) (1942-1945)
MCWA was established to control malaria around military training bases in the southern United States and its territories, where malaria was still problematic. Many of the bases were established in areas where mosquitoes were abundant. MCWA aimed to prevent reintroduction of malaria into the civilian population by mosquitoes that would have fed on malaria-infected soldiers, in training or returning from endemic areas. During these activities, MCWA also trained state and local health department officials in malaria control techniques and strategies.
CDC and Malaria (1946-present)
CDC’s mission to combat malaria began at its inception on July 1, 1946. The Communicable Disease Center, as CDC was first known, stemmed from MCWA. Thus, much of the early work done by CDC was concentrated on the control and eradication of malaria in the United States. With the successful reduction of malaria in the United States, the CDC switched its malaria focus from eradication efforts to prevention, surveillance, and technical support both domestically and internationally. This is still the focus of CDC’s Malaria Branch today.
Eradication of Malaria in the United States (1947-1951)
The National Malaria Eradication Program, a cooperative undertaking by state and local health agencies of 13 Southeastern states and the CDC, originally proposed by Louis Laval Williams, commenced operations on July 1, 1947. By the end of 1949, over 4,650,000 housespray applications had been made. In 1947, 15,000 malaria cases were reported. By 1950, only 2,000 cases were reported. By 1951, malaria was considered eradicated from the United States.
And also this:
Malaria has been endemic in the US until the late 1940’s. Most of the transmission occurred in the southeastern states. (From this derives the fact that CDC, originally derived from malaria control operations, is located in Atlanta, Georgia).
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Movie premiere OCTOBER 18th 2009 8 pm EST
daesleeper on August 15, 2009 at 5:03 PM
We don’t need no stinkin’ peoples.
Maybe the malaria parasites could be reintroduced into the southern US. I’m sure there are some that would pitch in a couple of bucks.
applebutter on August 15, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Being from Tennessee, we have never questioned Al Gore’s intentions because that is obvious. What we do question is his sanity.
volsense on August 15, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Care to clarify that statement?
daesleeper on August 15, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Thanks for this Ed.
mph on August 15, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Communist are evil.
Johan Klaus on August 15, 2009 at 5:16 PM
As a Texan who has spent a great deal of time in malaria prone areas of South America, my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek.
applebutter on August 15, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Welcome Tex. South Texas here.
Johan Klaus on August 15, 2009 at 5:18 PM
I saw them both at CPAC and they blew the place away.
I luv these guys.
RobCon on August 15, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Where will this film be shown? The Great Global Warming Swindle was not shown on TV outside of the UK. No station would carry it.
The problem is that the media is run by liberals. They control the theaters, the TV stations, and the Cable networks. They, therefore, control the message.
keep the change on August 15, 2009 at 5:22 PM
how about “not evil, just venal” or “not evil, just corrupt”
or “not evil, but just willing to game the data”
or “not evil, but just a power-mongers of first rank”
r keller on August 15, 2009 at 5:27 PM
In your home. Links are in the text over the vid.
applebutter on August 15, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Since socialist/communist are responsible for more murder and mayhem than Genghis Khan, I consider them evil.
Johan Klaus on August 15, 2009 at 5:35 PM
At this point in the game, not just communists are buying or even promoting this crap. I don’t think the argument they present is that nobody who promotes a global warming agenda is evil. They just want to take that out of the argument.
Don’t disbelieve global warming because it’s evil, disbelieve it because it’s wrong.
applebutter on August 15, 2009 at 5:40 PM
http://www.we-get-it.org
The same sort of message re: global warming.
PrincipledPilgrim on August 15, 2009 at 5:44 PM
It’s very simple people. Al Gore believes and even promotes so you know it’s wrong and all the so called science around it is bogus. Real science comprises of collected data that’s open for scrutiny by your peers, but AGW is based on data that conforms to their premise or goal.
larvcom on August 15, 2009 at 5:54 PM
“Not just evil , dead wrong.”
the_nile on August 15, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Agreed.
whitetop on August 15, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Great interview. My favorite quote/question: Why do elitist (environmentalist) want to keep poor people poor(down)?
It is guilt and the fact that they are trying to put meaning to their useless lives.
kahall on August 15, 2009 at 6:54 PM
No, wait another one. We’ll stay out of your bedroom if you stay out of the rest of the rooms in my house, my car, my light bulbs etc.
HaHa!
kahall on August 15, 2009 at 6:58 PM
Very good interview, informative and entertaining. It doesn’t get better than that. Thanks
whbates on August 15, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Not only are they absolutely correct, but they seem like really great people. Godspeed to them! I will definitely be purchasing their DVD.
DeathB4Tyranny on August 15, 2009 at 8:32 PM
Some of the best 42 minutes I have spent in a long time. I hope the movie is half as good. I could talk to her all day.
patrick neid on August 15, 2009 at 8:44 PM
Will Netflix be caring this? We need to petition them if they aren’t. A lot more people would/could see it that way.
tetriskid on August 15, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Personally, I think he gives them too much credit.
Cylor on August 15, 2009 at 10:48 PM
I thoroughly enjoyed listening to your online interview, and can’t wait to see the film.
Thanks for posting this, Ed.
jix on August 16, 2009 at 1:21 AM
I grew up in a small town in Oregon. One summer morning in 1954 (I was four years old), I wandered over to a farmer’s field. I was fascinated by the flies buzzing around the carcasses of two dead cows. The farmer showed up with a plow horse to drag the carcasses away. I asked him what happened. He told me that the mosquitoes had gotten so bad that the cattle had either died of blood loss or from exhaustion when they tried to outrun the swarms.
Today it is hard to believe that explanation. But it was easy for a 1954 four year old to understand. Late in the August afternoon the swarms were so thick that they provided shade from the setting sun. I could not play outside after the sun began to set.
A few years later, they were all but gone. I loved DDT.
Voodoo on August 16, 2009 at 2:45 AM
The two worst things for the environment are communism and poverty. Communism and poverty actually go together.
Hah! I love this guy.
Kevin M on August 16, 2009 at 4:59 AM
They (accurately) called Hansen ‘bitchy’. That put it over the top and made it a ‘must see’ movie. When does it come out?
Kevin M on August 16, 2009 at 5:17 AM
Oops, they answered the ‘when does it come out’ question 30 seconds after I asked it. Sorry for the multi-posting.
Kevin M on August 16, 2009 at 5:21 AM
Same time frame. We had the “fog man” once a month. An army jeep that drove over yards and around all the houses in the country side at twilight with a dozen of us running through it for miles pretending we were in the movie the Crawling Eye.
I still don’t get bit! Just kidding.
patrick neid on August 16, 2009 at 7:22 AM
No, it is evil. Trying to steal from everyone to enrich those who are perpetrating this hoax is nothing but evil.
Sporty1946 on August 16, 2009 at 8:41 AM
Ask an eco-type, now appearing locally (Grand & Victoria,St. Paul, MN) with their ‘Jobs for the Environment’ clipboards, “What is the most pristine environment on the planet?” When the ‘deer-headlights’ look blurs away, tell them, “The human womb”.
Broadsword on August 16, 2009 at 9:10 AM
Great interview Ed! I am looking forward to your review of this.
painfulTruthDisciple on August 16, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Wow, yeah these crazies think there are way too many of us little people. We need to give them the pitchfork treatment and get back our government, country and lives.
moyeti on August 16, 2009 at 11:49 AM
A ploy to keep us down and poor, the Dark Ages is exactly where they want us….Cap and Trade has to be defeated!! Al Gore has so shown his ignorance. If I remember rightly he stands to make billions off this “Global Warming/Climate Change thing…..the greed never stops. Where is the Media on this?? I wanna ask how does the media even think it can benefit from not reporting both sides of a story? Well, the proof is in the ‘pudding’, they’ll continue to lose readership and will go under.
Forward Onward and Upward!!
RoxanneH on August 16, 2009 at 1:51 PM
What exactly do you believe is a “hoax”? The great majority of climate scientists believe that CO2 from human activity is causing the Earth’s atmosphere to warm. There is a lot of evidence that this is happening. Or is your positioning that warming is happening but there is nothing we can or should do to stop it?
westernflyer on August 16, 2009 at 6:01 PM
The great majority of climate scientists believe that CO2 from human activity is causing the Earth’s atmosphere to warm. There is a lot of evidence that this is happening. Or is your positioning that warming is happening but there is nothing we can or should do to stop it?
westernflyer on August 16, 2009
How can CO2 be considered a leading indicator now when it’s proven that historically it was a lagging indicator? Why did the “warming” appear to stop ten years ago?
How many of the scientists who climbed into bed with Al Gore were actually climate scientists? How many of the climate change theorists depend on government grants to fund their work (speaks to motivation)? How many scientists have changed their minds and distanced themselves from their former climate change bedmate? How many real climate scientists (not psychologists and “social” scientists) argue against AGW or AGCC and what are their bona fides as compared to the believers? (prove your “great majority” contention and then, when you do, tell us how consensus equals science) How much money has and will Al Gore make from capitalizing on belief in AGW/AGCC (again, motives anyone?)?
I have many more questions and I want them all answered before I climb into bed with manbearpig .(ugh!)
SKYFOX on August 17, 2009 at 9:11 AM
I assume you’re talking about the major warming periods that follow ice ages, like the interesting curves shown here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
(please correct me if you’re talking about something else). You are right; at the end of an ice age, global temperature generally starts going up a few centuries before the CO2 increase. That warming is initially caused by wobbles in Earth’s orbit (”Milankovitch cycle”), not by CO2. Once the warming does get started, atmospheric CO2 also increases – most of it comes out of the ocean, since it’s not as soluble as sea water warms up. CO2 is a green house gas, definitely absorbs infrared radiation; there is NO scientific debate about that. So CO2, whether “natural” or produced by human activity, can actually amplify the warming triggered by the orbital variations. All else being equal, increasing atmospheric CO2 causes air temperature to increase in response. Yes, there are factors that can cause cooling too – e.g. increases in atmospheric dust due to volcanos. However the record of the past 120 years show a very clear upward trend in average global temperature. During this same period, carbon dioxide from burning coal, oil and gas has been injected into the atmosphere at many times the natural rate (see the famous “Keeling Curve” –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg).
Have a look at the global temperature curve from the past 120+ years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Yes, there sure are up and down variations, but these are superimposed on a clearly upward trend. Some of the short cooling trends are correlated with major volcanic eruptions (high altitude dust generally causes cooling). Like the stock market, there are short-term variations, but a clear trend over decades.
The scientific consensus is very impressive. It is not unanimous – science almost never is. Majority membership of the American Meteorological Society, The American Geophysical Union, The American Association for the Advancement of Science agree that AGW is real; you can see a list at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Regarding consensus – science is not a perfect process, but it is self-correcting; claims made by investigators are rigorously investigated by others, who will publish confirmation or refutation of the original claim. In some cases the minority opinion can turn out to be right, so consensus is not “proof”. However most people are not in any position to try climate experiments for themselves, nor able to rigorously examine all of the details, so consensus can be a very important criterion when deciding whether something is “true” or not.
I don’t know how many scientists have changed their minds on this. As I say there will always be scientific dissent, and that is the way that claims are tested. We should always have an open mind (including me) – new evidence might show long-term cooling. But as far as I know, that evidence does not exist.
Finally – we agree on something! ;-)
I object to the claim that somehow there is a vast conspiracy of scientists to perpetrate a global warming “hoax”. There is very strong evidence that warming is occuring, and there is very strong evidence that increased CO2 caused by burning oil, gas, and coal are causing much if not most of that warming.
westernflyer on August 17, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Comment pages: