#
“The judge identified nine aspects of An Inconvenient Truth, nine core errors, where Al Gore either misstated the IPCC or prejudicially exaggerated what they found.” John Day is the lawyer for a British parent who sued the British Department
of Education when they tried to distribute An Inconvenient Truth to schools.
Los Angeles showing "Not Evil Just Wrong" next Tuesday
Written by Kristin McMurray   
Thursday, 23 September 2010 13:21
AFAWe're excited to announce that the American Freedom Alliance (AFA) will be featuring Not Evil Just Wrong in their film series next Tuesday, September 28th. 

Ann and Phelim will be speaking at a Q&A panel following the movie to give personal insights to the scandals they uncovered and the enemies they made whilst filming Not Evil Just Wrong, and their previous one before that, Mine Your Own Business.

Details about the event:

Date: September 28th
Location: Santa Monica Screening Room
1526 14th St. (Suite 102), Santa Monica, CA 90404
Time: 7:30 pm
Admission: $15
Parking: Street parking

Share this page on your favorite Social Websites...

Comments (2)add comment

Russell C said:

Spreading the news of the '96-to-present smear of skeptic scientists
Just wondering if Ann & Phelim could help me inform more people by telling the story of the origins of accusations claiming skeptic scientists are 'corrupted by big coal & oil'? In my American Thinker article last week, "Warmist Slander of Scientific Skeptics" ( http://www.americanthinker.com...tific.html ), I detail how the sources in the recent New Yorker magazine 'exposé' of the Koch brothers rely on other sources for their global warming 'corrupt scientists' accusation that trace right back to enviro-activists who created the corruption accusation 15+ years ago.

AGW believers have put all their eggs in one basket, that Fred Singer et. al were paid to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact", and as I boiled down in my ClimateRealists chronology article ( http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6175 ), these guys created a narrative so simple it could be regurgitated by the dumbest of AGW believers, in three points:

1. a scientific consensus says the debate is settled; Fact, end of story.
2. skeptic scientists corrupted by big coal & oil industries seek to 'reposition' the public into believing AGW is not a fact.
3. journalists don't have to give equal weight to skeptic scientists because of the previous two points; they're corrupt, and few in number.

Nobody checked the voracity of that accusation. If skeptic scientists are not corrupt, what fallback position do AGW believers have, when skeptic scientists and others are showing so many fatal faults in IPCC reports???
 
September 24, 2010
Votes: +2

Dave Stephens said:

fatal errors are easily repackaged into, "You're corrupt so your opinion is worthless"
Nothing is impervious to "debunkification."
 
September 28, 2010
Votes: +0

Write comment

busy