Phelim McAleer, one of the producers of the anti-Al Gore film “Not Evil, Just Wrong,” sneaked into a Gore press event and threw a tantrum the other day.
Why is this relevant? Oh, the tantrum was rude, but if you’re a hack film producer with a political screed whose film looks like a flop, you’ll do anything to get publicity for the film. Perhaps we should not be too critical of publicity whores.
It’s not relevant because of that.
It’s relevant because one of the charges against Gore by the fruit-and-nut brigade is that Gore refuses to talk to the press. How can they complain about Gore’s treatment of them when any mention of this event makes the Gore critics appear untruthful?
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
I don’t know what code you were asked for, or why it didn’t work. I don’t see that stuff — I use WordPress for free (I don’t have a billion-dollar budget for public relations).
Sorry it didn’t work. I don’t know why. I’ll forward your comments to WordPress.
LikeLike
No fear of McAleer — just corrections. If my corrections of McAleer are in error, why can no one find the facts to correct them? If what I say is in error, why all insults, no data?
Gore had nothing to do with it. It was a group of journalists trying to get at the facts who unplugged McAleer. If McAleer’s movie is any good, why is he masquerading as a reporter? If he’s got the facts, why is his movie going straight to DVD (not even Blu-Ray)?
Why can’t you tell the difference between Gore and a group of reporters interviewing him? Why do you defend McAleer’s rudeness?
If McAleer has such great questions, why didn’t the reporters let him go? When a reporter had Nixon at the mic and asked Nixon an embarrassing question, other reporters waited breahtlessly for an answer. That McAleer can’t get that respect only demonstrates how far off the mark his questions were.
What press credientials did he use to break into the press conference?
I’ve never called for censorship of any view. I don’t censor posts here. But you’ve offered no facts, and no arguments, to defend McAleer. If you have something other than insults, offer it.
I find a guy who campaigns to poison Africans a bit bizarre. That his campaign tends to fog up the debate about helping save kids from malaria is shocking, and deserves rebuking. If I’m wrong, muster some facts and show me.
I let you dump your toxic views here. Turnabout is fair play — and in that case, you’d be performing a public service, maybe for the first time.
You know as well as everyone else that McAleer is wrong about DDT. We just allowed you to demonstrate it.
LikeLike
By the way, the check box to “notify me of replies to my post” doesn’t work. I did get the email, but when clicking on the link in that email, I was asked for some “code” which was not in the email. Other than that, pretty nice site (look/feel) for WordPress.
LikeLike
If everything you say is true, then why the fear of McAleer? Why would Mr. Gore and his associates unplug the microphone of someone simply for not agreeing? What about differences of opinion, and respect for those differences? I think your retort above illustrates one of the trademarks of the radical climate change movement; intolerance of any other view.
And then to close by asking my address so you can direct truckloads of DDT to my driveway, how silly.
JL
LikeLike
You’re almost right — if you don’t read my other posts here on that grease spot of a film, you might think it has some merit.
Did you bother to nose around and see?
The details I can defend strongly are these: The film lies about Rachel Carson, lies about DDT, and lies about the damage DDT does. The film tells a phony story about how DDT could have saved millions from malaria deaths, thereby condemning more thousands to die from malaria because some fool will believe that we can, in fact, poison the hell out of Africa, and poison the continent to good health.
That’s all a crock. And that’s just one minor point in the movie. If the producers are that reckless with the truth on an easy-to-research issue like DDT, how trustworthy can they be on a complex issue like climate change?
The article you referred to demonstrates to us why McAleer is held in such disdain by scientists, policy makers and journalists:
McAleer said:
Second time in a week that Gore met the press in that town, I understood from the news stories. We should count the dozens of press appearances Gore made in the six months prior to the Academy Award, and the months after. Gore’s met with more editorial boards on this issue than McAleer has read newspapers. Sheesh! Gore was on the road with the lectures for two years before the movie came out, and he’s been on the road on the issue around the world since then. At almost every stop he’s met with reporters. It’s too bad you can’t convince good reporters to carry your cudgel into meetings with Gore — there’s journalism ethics, though, and these guys are out to get at the facts. As you know, reality has a strong anti-climate-change-skeptic bias.
Doesn’t McAleer read newspapers at all? Where did he think all those Gore quotes came from? Doesn’t McAleer know how to use Google? Hasn’t he got a library close by? Is he congenitally averse to research and reading?
There were 35 allegations of error. The court threw out 26 of them. Only nine of the allegations were held to have some political merit by the judge, though the judge did not rule on the science stuff, and especially the judge did not rule that Gore’s science is wrong.
And somehow, McAleer forgot to tell us that the judge ruled that Gore’s movie was correct about the overall conclusion, that warming occurs and humans cause it. Oopsie.
Among other complaints, the judge said it is possible a viewer might come away from Gore’s film with a belief that the Greenland ice sheet may melt within the next 20 years, because Gore does not specifically state that it won’t. Gore relied on studies that show it may melt away over the next century and a half, but the judge didn’t think that’s clear.
That’s an error?
Meanwhile, since that ruling, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet has accelerated dramatically faster than any scientist feared.
I’m not sure that should be regarded as an error on Gore’s part, nor would I trumpet to the world that the judge ruled Gore wasn’t fair to climate change skeptics, since the skeptics were found in error three times more often than Gore (well almost — 27 would be three times, 26 is just shy of three times).
Oh, but somehow McAleer failed to note that.
And he claims to be campaigning for the truth?
So the reporters, who love a good donnybrook (it makes good copy), found McAleer so offensive and inaccurate, such a mic hog, that they cut him off?
McAleer’s proud of that?
That’s sorta like a fly finding that you smell too bad to land on.
Tell you what, JLkansascity — let me know where you live, and I’ll arrange for EPA to give you a few tons of DDT to keep you free from malaria. You see, we taxpayers are paying millions of dollars to clean up the dumps the DDT manufacturers left behind — and we’re having trouble finding places to take the DDT-tainted soil. You’ll be doing a service to the world. And if, as McAleer claims, it’s perfectly harmless, you’ll be putting one over on the world, won’t you.
What’s your address? I can get a truckload to you shortly.
Maybe you can get us McAleer’s number, too?
LikeLike
Your article is weak on detail; you don’t explain anything that transpired that leads to your conclusions. Here is the explanation of the event from Mr. McAleer.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=509026
LikeLike