Not Evil Just Wrong

Some of you may be aware of the upcoming film, Not Evil, Just Wrong, a feature length documentary on the dangers of radical environmentalism

Here’s the trailer:


They producers have already received over $1 million USD to promote this film, and are very interested in promoting this film in Australia, and working with interested parties to organise some special screenings and so on.
Whilst I know views on AGW are rather diverse amongst ALS readers, if anyone here is interested in finding out more, or in possibly working together on bringing this film to Australia, I invite you to drop Eilzabeth Terrell, their Coalitions Director [although she prefers the title Professional Climate Bullshit Combatant (baddassington)] an email at

29 thoughts on “Not Evil Just Wrong

  1. The guy in the video that starts speaking at the 43 second mark with the comment “I don’t think it would be a bad thing for this earth to warm up” is Patrick Moore. Not Patrick Moore the British astronomer but Patrick Moore the Canadian. Somewhat ironically he was a co-founder of Greenpeace. For nine years he was President of Greenpeace Canada, and for six years he was a Director of Greenpeace International. He has a PHd in ecology.

    A lot of greenies hate Patrick because they think he betrayed the movement. The way he tells it the movement was invaded by socialists after the cold war ended. Greenies also took issue with him for defending Bjorn Lomborg.

    I’ve read Patricks book “Trees are the Answer” which in my view was pretty spot on in it’s analysis. His website is worth a visit.

  2. The comparisons between extreme environmentalism and religion are not brought out enough. I posted some observations on thisLavatory Pronto thread a while back but this Quadrant article is quite brilliant and illustrates the point nicely.

    Extreme environmentalism uses AGW as its basis, but really it’s about providing a religion to justify the sweeping use of law against people in the pursuit of the collective ideal, the ability to sacrifice human interests in the name of ‘the greater good’ and provide a basis by which progressive human activity eg capitalistic production, individual quality of life etc can be condemned as immoral.

  3. This looks a lot like anti-intellectual American right wing propaganda. I would have expected better from this blog. Policies should be based around science with a firm foundation, not completely ignored or distorted if it doesn’t meet a specific world view. I’m sure this film has a couple of Mobil funded “experts” to back up their claims but they can’t deny that the bulk of scientific literature and yes “consensus” points towards many major anthropogenic ecological problems in the near future.

    Ideas are persuasive when based on sound evidence and enlightened perspective. ALS would be better off staying away from conservative nutjobs.

  4. can’t deny that the bulk of scientific literature and yes “consensus” points towards many major anthropogenic ecological problems in the near future.

    Let’s clarify this one a little. I’m sure the ‘bulk of scientific literature and yes “consensus” points towards many major anthropogenic ecological problems in the near future’, but does that include the one about the earth warming, melting ice-caps, causing droughts and food shortages, and changing the weather patterns of the world for the worse, commonly known as AGW?

  5. Jarryd – if you really just care about rational pursuit of the truth, why do you bring up mobil? Let’s just stick to the facts, and skip the cheap shot.

  6. I don’t know why this movie would be of interest to liberatarians. A movie entitled ‘Not just wrong, but evil’ would be more appropriate.

  7. Jarryd, I dont actually remember them saying Global warming wasnt happening… or that it wasnt our fault. What I did hear them saying was… “I dont think it will be a bad thing”.

  8. anti-intellectual American right wing propaganda.

    1. anti-intellectual – NO not really
    2. American – MAYBE but Patrick is Canadian
    3. Right Wing – YES it seems to be the case these days
    4. Propaganda – ABSOLUTELY but so what

  9. My personal view:-

    1. AGW is probably real.
    2. Warming is probably good for some parts of the world and crap for other parts. Good for Russia bad for Australia for example.
    3. Mitigation of AGW is worth while but not at any cost.
    4. Technology will ultimately solve or mitigate most of these problems.

    The main thing in the AGW theory that I don’t feel comfortable that I have a well formed view on is the issue of tipping points. However I’m not sure anybody has a well formed view on tipping points. They seem to be a hypothetical that is used as a persuasive point of argument but which can’t be readily verified one way or the other.

  10. Fatty:

    Leave the shit out about Exxon mobil as that’s nothing to do with whether it’s right or wrong.

    Leave that crap for Tim Lysenko-Lambert to lie about and dissemble.

  11. Is this movie available to watch online? I went to there website and couldnt find anything about release dates or the like, I would like to watch it but there doesnt seem to be much about it around.

    Anybody know more?

  12. I just found a 5 cent zimbabwe coin in my cupboards from when i was there aloooong time ago. Today it must be worth something like 0.00000000000000005 cents. I think its made of aluminimum or something its really light. 😀

  13. Science has become political and science has replaced religion as the beliefs people are willing to accept. It’s not a surprise that politicians saw the power of science among the people and brought it into their fold to serve their interests.

  14. It is beyond me why vulgar libertarians continue to serve as defenders of the status quo. Might it not serve us well to critically consider other forms of oppression?

  15. I’m with Sinclair Davidson.

    I think that anti-human, volitional action is evil.
    I think that therefore, actions motivated by enivronmentalist ideology are evil and nihilistic.

    If we were to switch entirely to renewable fuels, we’d all die a lot sooner, probably in our 30s if history is a guide. It is thermodynamically impossible. More energy is required to make “renewable” fuels than you get from them. But whether or not decreasing human prosperity is recognised as evil depends on your ethics.

    It’s right there in the intro to this video. A pro-enviromentalist quote states that correcting the AGW “problem” will be “painful”. They know that environmentalist regulation will negatively impact humanity and slow advancement – Yet clearly people think this is morally good!

    You can already see evidence of many people evading reality on this issue. How many people know the world hasn’t heated for about 10 year? The kids currently being indoctrinated in primary schools, certainly don’t.
    The refusal to think, evaluate and use your brain as humans are capable, is IMO where evil starts.
    Joining the collective and abdicating on the requirement to think for yourself didn’t work for the Nazis, or the commies and it won’t ultimately help us as we live through the enviro movement.

    Philosophically, the conservatives generally seem to think capitalism is a necessary evil. They accept that humans are inherently evil (not just capable of evil, but actually born evil) and that a bit of evil in your life is metaphysically potent and necessary. ie: Being evil will be to your benefit in this world at least. This is why they are reluctant to talk ethics. Because their ethics doesn’t work and is riddled with contradictions and they know it. The lefties seem to think the same thing, but they do not accept tolerating the evil.
    This type of thinking on ethics is common and widely accepted and probably explains why people are fascinated by TV shows such as Underbelly and movies that glorify criminals. It also helps explain the authoritarian nature of politics. If being evil benefits you and if being evil is unavoidable, you cannot let people be free, and society therefore requires more authority.

    There are examples of environmentalists openly stating that humans are a “disease” on the planet and that the best thing that could happen to the earth is for a mass extinction of humanity.
    This type of view often isn’t recognised as being evil (to those who worship higher powers such as mother earth or whatever), but it should be. Where’s the shocked horror at these type of statements? It doesn’t exists. It’s common to hear people stating there are too many people on the planet.

    Environmentalism is widely accepted because people think it is righteous and moral.
    Your typical hippie, far from being an independent thinker, is ironically a first rate conformist to society’s dominant ethical theories and also conforms to the dominating epistemological ideologies of pragmatism.
    In my opinion: Hippies turned out just as they were taught, they are conformists with impaired thinking ability, generally low achievers, probably plauged by some guilt/fear type insecurities, who just want friends and are willing to evade thinking in order to join the collective.
    What you now find, is that the vast majority of people in society accept this ideology and adopt it to some degree.

    The environmentalist ideolgy has swept the world in 30 or so years to be widely accepted by almost everyone. Quite an achievement really, and I think libertarians could learn a thing or two from this remarkable (albeit evil) movement.

    To counter my line of reasoning one could point out that people genuinely believe the doom and gloom. ie: People think that AGW will harm them long term. Therefore they think environmentalism is good for humans long term. And they are probably confused too thinking there’s a balance of good/evil surrounding the issue – again a symptom of the prevailing ethics of the day.
    But this type of environmentalist (those with good intentions for human kind) is understandable and hopefully, these people will eventually wake up to the continuing growth of empirical evidence that shows that 1) there is no imminent catastrophe/armageddon and 2) environmentalism is inherently anti-human and collectivist – therefore evil.

  16. Oh I completely agree, my preferred title would definatly have been evil AND wrong, but they didn’t ask for my opinion prior to making the movie unfortunately! 🙂

    I do think though that you’re very right that we have quite a bit we can learn from the environmentalist movement -from the left in generally really.

  17. Not evil, just wrong?

    Reminds me of VHEMT… But what they are doing is voluntary.

    The global warming movement, as far as it is wrong, is also evil, however. Evil, to me, is the conscious and voluntary use of action to ensure anti-utilitarian outcomes. If they are wrong they are most definitely evil. Especially since they use government to push their way of living on others.

    Of course I’m not sure of the science- I’ve given up on that debate. But the movie definitely seems to have some really good points. The environmental movement is always going to be about tradeoffs- we need to look at whether or not those tradeoffs are worth it. But also we can’t be blind to the costs and gains of either side. Yes some people may lose their jobs if carbon is heavily taxed or traded. But that will force market distortion and the creation of new jobs in renewable industries.

    It’s a tradeoff, though. And I don’t possess the necessary foresight to predict what is better. I don’t think anyone does. I think it’s largely guess work. I can’t think of a way individual action could answer the AGW question either way, though. Nations, countries and societies as a whole need to take the plunge and follow the guess in either direction. Either do regulate carbon or don’t. Either way the potential costs are huge. Perhaps individuals should just be able to vote with their dollars in a free market? But that still doesn’t answer what we as individuals should be doing….

    Let’s ignore government for a moment and let me ask you- what should I, Shem, do about climate change? Assume that my action is replicated by the rest of the world, or at least the majority. Assume that it’s voluntary. What is “right”? Not just “should government force ‘right’ on people?”

  18. You should worry about being hit by a bus. It is a far bigger risk. So cross roads carefully.

  19. I do! But is there REALLY a far bigger risk associated with being hit by a bus specifically?

    And are you talking about death resulting from climate change only? Or all the potential negative outcomes that could result from it? Remembering as well that as a good moral entity I strive to ensure positive outcomes for everyone, not just myself.

    I know your response wasn’t intended to be entirely serious. But I’m just wondering if there is a need for voluntary action on climate change or if we should be sceptical of acting at all.

  20. Pingback: New junk science movie: “Not evil, just wrong” « Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub

  21. Pingback: The Curse of “Not Evil, Just Wrong” — still evil and wrong « Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub

  22. They producers have already received over $1 million USD to promote this film, and are very interested in promoting this film in Australia, and working with interested parties to organise some special screenings and so on.

    Lord Monckton wonders, ‘Where do they get this money? From foreign governments? I don’t know, but certainly someone should be investigating them.’

    Speaking of buses, it seems a bus hit the viewer who was going to see this film in New York. He didn’t show up at the theatre.

  23. Well, Monckton clearly needs to spend more time there, so he can say only very, very stupid things, instead of libelous, off-the-wall, moonbat-scaring completely made up excrement, yes?

    Actually, my brief experience with Deltoid is that spending time there can be very informative. I don’t spend enough time there, and if you think this movie is accurate, or good, and not a bad-piece-of-meat hack propaganda, you should spend more time at Deltoid, too.

Comments are closed.