College Republicans screen conservative climate change documentary
'Not Evil Just Wrong' cited inaccurate statistics in its argument.
Published Oct. 20, 2009
On Sunday, the MU College Republicans hosted a showing of the conservative documentary "Not Evil Just Wrong" as part of a worldwide screening of the film.
A Facebook invitation sent to notify people of the event contained the incorrect time, leading to low attendance for the viewing. Eight people came to watch the film.
"We'll definitely show it again next semester," MU College Republicans Chairman Brett Dinkins said.
The movie, directed by Irish filmmakers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney attempts to discredit what they call the "sky is falling rhetoric" of the Al Gore documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."
The MU College Republicans met with the filmmakers and heard them speak about the film prior to its release.
"The purpose is to expose some of the fallacies presented in 'An Inconvenient Truth' and explore the effects extreme environmentalists are having on some poorer countries," Dinkins said.
The film opened by alternating between clips of Al Gore and environmentalists speaking about global warming and old warnings of danger during the Y2K scare ultimately posing the question: "Is the threat real?"
Interviewees in the movie repeatedly claimed people have always had fears of coming disasters even if there is little scientific proof. They compared the theory of climate change to the 1970s fear of a coming ice age and the fear over Mad Cow Disease.
Participants called climate change a human rights issue, citing the banning of pesticide DDT in malaria-ridden countries as an example. The filmmakers blame the ban for it for millions of malaria deaths that it said could have been prevented.
The World Health Organization lifted the ban on DDT in 2006, but people involved in "Not Evil Just Wrong" said Al Gore's support of the ban serves as an example of his environmental extremism.
The documentary argues British school children are still shown "An Inconvenient Truth" though a British court found nine significant exaggerations in the film.
This, the film claims, coupled with media always looking for the global warming connection, leads to environmentalists' anti-human approach to environmentalism.
Similar to the basis of "Not Evil Just Wrong," Columbia resident Paul Brugmann said teaching environmentalism in schools could be harmful. He said he brought his son to the movie because he is exposed to liberal environmentalism in the public school system.
"The movie is an objective contrast to an issue where there's a lot of hysteria," Brugmann said.
The film also presented "The Hockey Stick Graph," which is used to illustrate dramatic changes in global temperature and is based on faulty statistics.
Brugmann said for him, this was the most poignant argument made in the film.
"It was the best example of where environmentalists are willing to depart from hard science to hang onto fore drawn conclusions," he said.
Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace who has since left the organization, appeared in the film. Moore said cold temperatures lessen biodiversity.
"I don't think it would be a bad thing for the Earth to warm up," Moore said.
The film argues the United States cannot financially handle a ban on coal and fossil fuels. The film profiles several families and towns, which would be devastated by a switch to more expensive alternative energy.
Dinkins said the College Republicans did not show this movie to oppose other more liberal groups on campus calling for environmental action.
"We just really hope that everyone will walk out with a better understanding of conservative environmentalism," he said.
Comments (2)
2:03 a.m., Oct. 22, 2009
Ben Datema said:
I wasn't too impressed with Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth," but I was appalled at this documentary. "Not Evil Just Wrong" was of very poor quality, and I don't know where to begin to respond to the hour and a half of errors it espoused. It made many complicated issues into oversimplified black and white, good and evil situations using dubious emotional arguments and vague scientific references to support its claims. Primarily, this documentary was focused on bashing Al Gore and the broader environmental movement without seeking to truly investigate, understand and communicate the issues at the heart of the debate. In effect, the entire hour and a half was spent saying that the economy is more important than the environment, and that there is no way to resolve the goals of both of these systems. While the makers of this documentary are busy bashing Al Gore, I plan to be out helping to create a new economic model that provides for human needs without also undermining its own foundation, that improves human health by its very nature, and that allows us to do more with less, in more effective ways for as long as we would like to do them. Ironically, I hope to help solve nearly every problem this documentary cited as a case against environmentalism through my environmentalist actions, and I hope that those who agree with this documentary will be willing to work with me as we progress toward a better future.
Post a comment
3 p.m., Oct. 20, 2009
carl said:
Not the best documentary I have ever seen. I did like it's point of view but felt it could have spent a little more time on facts (what they did feature was good) and less on the plight of the family in Indiana because opponents will simply say that it doesn't help for them to keep their job if it is leading to global destruction. The personal stuff is good but it will take facts to win the argument.