posted on May 25, 2004 05:36:21 PM new Storm warning
by Ed Feulner
Those of us old enough to remember the 1970s sometimes think of it as the era of the bad disaster movie. Well, get ready for some cinematic deja vu.
Sure, the upcoming film "The Day After Tomorrow" has a bigger budget and better special effects. But it flaunts the same lack of scientific credibility as, say, "Jaws" once did.
This time the culprit is carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas we exhale every time we breathe. CO2 is also produced when we burn fossil fuels.
In the film, CO2 causes global warming. An Antarctic ice sheet melts. The oceans cool and the Gulf Stream stops. A massive summer snowstorm drowns much of North America under hundreds of feet of snow. No one is prepared for these changes, since they happen over just three days.
It gets worse. Eventually, the ice melts and inland areas flood. Ireland endures hurricanes while huge hailstones pelt Japan. Whew. It's enough to make you want to hold your breath. Except it's all hot air.
The entire scenario hinges on shutting down the Gulf Stream, the warm ocean current that flows west to east. But that couldn't happen. In a recent letter to Nature magazine, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Carl Wunsch points out, "the occurrence of a climate state without the Gulf Stream any time soon within tens of millions of years has a probability of little more than zero."
Still, the opinion of real experts such as Mr. Wunsch isn't enough to silence self-proclaimed experts such as former presidential candidate Al Gore. He says the film "presents us with a great opportunity to talk about the scientific realities of climate change." This, he claims, is "an emergency that seems to be unfolding in slow motion, but actually is occurring very swiftly not as swiftly as the movie portrays, but swiftly in the context of human history."
Well, let's keep Mr. Gore's "human history" in context. After all, Galileo didn't invent the thermometer until the 1590s, and we've been keeping detailed temperature records for only the last 100 years or so.
The only thing swift about global warming is how swiftly it has replaced the idea of global cooling. As recently as the 1970s, scientists were worried about another ice age.
"During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade," the National Science Board announced in 1974. "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end ... leading into the next glacial age."
That prediction hasn't worked out. So there's reason to be skeptical when a group such as moveon.org tries to stir up fear by handing out flyers warning "global warming isn't just a movie; it's your future."
Let's set the rhetoric aside and look at the facts. The average temperature measured at the Earth's surface has risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last 100 years. But satellite measurements haven't shown a comparable trend and, in fact, show a slight cooling in the last 20 years.
Global warming may be a problem, and we should keep studying it. But it's too soon for radical and expensive, steps.
That's why it's important to have policy institutes such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute. For 20 years, CEI has been dedicated to providing sound science and debunking the myths spread by environmental extremists.
The fact is, to bring down CO2 emissions, we would have to shrink the global economy. In 2001, for example, greenhouse gas emissions declined by 1.2 percent, mostly because of a 3.5 percent decline in economic growth. Small wonder the Senate voted down the infamous Kyoto Accord 95-0.
This summer, millions of Americans will sit in air-conditioned movie theaters and watch a frightening film. But the real risk today isn't global warming it's that we'll overreact and damage our economy in an unnecessary attempt to prevent climate change.
posted on May 25, 2004 06:44:23 PM new
EAG - coming on the heels of 10.whatever where nuclear blasts save the west coast and the ocean makes a two hour drive to Barstow cutting though millons of tons of earht only to arrive in the land of the giant thermameter in pristine and crystal clear condition, the only thing that scares me about TDAT is that someone might actually believe it.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 25, 2004 07:38:14 PM new
This just goes to show the influence that the movies can have on public opinion....forget facts...just give them a movie and it will convince them it's true.
Years ago when the movie The China Syndrome was made....it turned many away from supporting nuclear power plants....and that source of cheap energy has never been as popular since.
Now...others will probably view this movie and take all of it as facts too.
Scientists can't even agree on this issue.
I'm undecided....but it's not on the top of my 'worry' list right now.
posted on May 25, 2004 10:08:06 PM new
I believe there are now approximately 500+ nuclear reactors in the world.
"The majority of these power reactors--around 75 percent--are pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors. Thirteen RBMK reactors--the type involved in the Chernobyl accident--are still operating, all in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union."
posted on May 25, 2004 10:18:33 PM new
Yes, but Linda, if a company were to get approval for constrction of a nuclear based power plant these days the oil companies would simply put in a call to the current administration and Ashcroft would have it squashed as a potential terrorist target.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 25, 2004 11:34:04 PM new
fenix - lol...I don't think so.
But you know what frustrates me the most? It's how I personally judge from all that I read, that the democratic party complains constantly about the 'rights' support of the oil industry. They don't blame the use of oil when their own party is in office and it's beneficial to our country - helping our economy grow.
On top of that....they seem to block [be against] almost every type of reasonably priced energy source there is. They support environmentally safe [which I'd like to see too] energy which is so expensive and the people just won't go for it. Then they [dems] even object when say the windmills were offered to produce a whole state with cheap energy....because it's in their backyard and they don't want to have it disturb their 'view'.
It just appears they want to complain....block...and blame.
posted on May 25, 2004 11:43:57 PM new
I really enjoyed this 'take' on the movie.
Day After Tomorrow: Liberal utopia
Ryan Zempel (archive)
May 25, 2004
So what will life be like this Saturday -- the day after "The Day After Tomorrow" opens?
Will Bush's reelection campaign be finished and John Kerry guaranteed the presidency, as the Guardian newspaper has predicted?
Will environmentalists seize their "teachable moment", harness a fearful and outraged public, and strongarm Congress into "seeing the light" and resuscitating the Kyoto Protocol?
In other words, will liberals get their fairy tale ending?
In a word: Nope.
For the most part, "The Day After Tomorrow" is your typical disaster movie, albeit one that combines virtually every weather disaster you can imagine.
It's a chance to see tornadoes rip apart Los Angeles, a tidal wave drown Manhattan, and giant hailstones devastate Tokyo (the lack of any meteors suggests they had trouble securing Armageddon's copyright).
All this to herald the abrupt onset of a new ice age.
Oh, yeah -- there's also ice. And snow. Lots and lots of ice and snow. Think Antarctica.
Beyond the "have I seen this before?" scenes of climatic madness and mayhem, however, the movie is premised on the wonderfully politicized topic of global warming.
Oh, goody.
Liberals have accordingly latched onto the movie hoping to incite panic and force Congress to act -- either by reviving Kyoto or passing the pending Climate Stewardship Act (based on the notion that bankrupting our economy is bound to improve the environment).
One might suspect that the filmmakers themselves are liberal (initial news reports indicate that the Pope is, indeed, Catholic), given that the movie seems to have been tailor-made to accomplish their dubious aims.
In fact, director Roland Emmerich's muse could very well have been atmospheric scientist Stephen Schneider, who stated in a 1989 Discover Magazine interview:
"On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but... On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place... To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
Fortunately for Mr. Emmerich, whose realm is doomsday fiction, he can discard the whole honesty thing.
Not so for the liberal alarmists hoping to capitalize on the movie, who won't be able to get away with being dishonest (well, no more than usual).
Which is why they'd better prepare themselves for disappointment.
The movie dispenses altogether with trying to make the actual case for global warming (hmmm... sounds like global warming's real-world proponents) and in fact only ties it to our use of natural resources in a moralizing little sermon at the end.
Instead of making a case, the focus is on the alarmists' feared events, which it compresses into a matter of days, making for exciting viewing but laughable science (then again, maybe the movie does accurately reflect today's global warming debate).
So what will the public learn in this "teachable moment"? It will learn that "Hollywood time is not, obviously, the same as geological time," as Duke University Professor Susan Lozier has put it.
Global warming alarmists waiting to provide the public with their version of "answers" after the movie must first respond to its one overriding question -- "Could it happen like that?"
Game over.
When faced with that question, they are forced to admit that the movie "greatly exaggerates how quickly climate change can happen" (Harvard's Daniel Schrag) and that such events "would take many, many decades or even a century or more" (Prof. Lozier).
Of course, enquiring minds can always turn to global warming's όber-cheerleader, Al Gore, who says that "it's an emergency that seems to be unfolding in slow motion, but is actually occurring very swiftly; not as fast as the movie portrays, but swiftly in the context of human history."
"Swiftly in the context of human history." Just makes you want to run home and call your congressman, doesn't it?
Despite the miserable propaganda failure the movie will be, Bush-hating liberals will still love it -- there are plenty of partisan potshots to keep them happy (I'd recommend conservatives sit this one out).
The most obvious (liberals have never been ones for subtlety) is the valiant, prescient hero's nemesis, who just happens to be a Dick Cheney look-alike VP who tells the president what to do and who has this bizarre concern for the actual economic effect of the "Kyoto Accord" (those money-grubbing conservatives...).
The filmmakers also let us feast on criticism of U.S. immigration policy, repentance for arrogance toward the Third World, the end of western civilization as we know it, and a presidential mea culpa. All in all, an arrogant America humbled.
Maybe liberals get their fairy tale ending after all.
Just think -- all it would take to achieve a liberal's idea of utopia is the abrupt onset of an ice age. Who says they lack a positive agenda?
LOL
Ryan Zempel is the News & Politics Editor of Townhall.com.
Re-elect President Bush!!
posted on May 26, 2004 07:58:07 AM new
The funny thing about all of this "conservative backlash" on this movie is that I think conservatives are the only ones thinking this way. Other people know this is a movie with an imaginary concept. People who are actually able to locate their local voting locating are usually also able to tell the difference between real life and a movie (the screen is wider in real life in case you were wondering). I will admit though that all of these attempts at anti-hype have succeeded in one thig... I actually interested in seeing the movie now to see what has them all in such a tizzy
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 29, 2004 06:17:34 AM new
It's amazing to me that even this can be made into a left-right issue. Here is a link to a very informative page from NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA is the only reliable weather resource in my opinion and I use it's site daily. The global warming page is available HERE
Here's a quote from the page's summary:
What about the future?
Due to the enormous complexity of the atmosphere, the most useful tools for gauging future changes are 'climate models'. These are computer-based mathematical models which simulate, in three dimensions, the climate's behavior, its components and their interactions. Climate models are constantly improving based on both our understanding and the increase in computer power, though by definition, a computer model is a simplification and simulation of reality, meaning that it is an approximation of the climate system. The first step in any modeled projection of climate change is to first simulate the present climate and compare it to observations. If the model is considered to do a good job at representing modern climate, then certain parameters can be changed, such as the concentration of greenhouse gases, which helps us understand how the climate would change in response. Projections of future climate change therefore depend on how well the computer climate model simulates the climate and on our understanding of how forcing functions will change in the future.
The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios determines the range of future possible greenhouse gas concentrations (and other forcings) based on considerations such as population growth, economic growth, energy efficiency and a host of other factors. This leads a wide range of possible forcing scenarios, and consequently a wide range of possible future climates.
According to the range of possible forcing scenarios, and taking into account uncertainty in climate model performance, the IPCC projects a global temperature increase of anywhere from 1.4 - 5.8°C from 1990-2100. However, this global average will integrate widely varying regional responses, such as the likelihood that land areas will warm much faster than ocean temperatures, particularly those land areas in northern high latitudes (and mostly in the cold season).
Precipitation is also expected to increase over the 21st century, particularly at northern mid-high latitudes, though the trends may be more variable in the tropics.
Snow extent and sea-ice are also projected to decrease further in the northern hemisphere, and glaciers and ice-caps are expected to continue to retreat.
___________________________________
When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
posted on May 29, 2004 09:31:16 AM new
While I was out driving this week, I tuned into one of the conservative talk radio stations & found myself listening to them rant about this movie.
It was hysterical. They were responding as if this movie was a documentary! They were saying things like "the movie doesn't tell you that undersea volcanoes are responsible for..." and "industry doesn't cause..." And they even brought on an expert to refute the science in the movie!!!! They kept going on & on & on about liberals and their evil agenda.
ROFLMAO!!!!!
I kept waiting for one of their callers to say HELLO! Reality check, please! It's a MOVIE, guys. It's NOT REAL.
Silly me--I should have known that most of their listeners take what is said on these talk radio stations as gospel. Every single person who phoned in joined the rant!
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 29, 2004 11:07:08 AM new
I must be out of touch because I just heard yesterday why this movie became such a hot button topic. Looks like the studio owes a big debt of thanks to the White House. What kind of idiot contacts top experts and tells them to not to comment on a the plot of a movie. May as well have put a big neon sign over every theatre as a becon.
Idiots!
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 29, 2004 07:56:24 PM new
this movie and all the other disaster movies before it, are actually the gov'ts warning to everyone, so take notes.
They are not going to tell you if there is an upcoming huge global disaster, so they are using the movie industry.
posted on May 29, 2004 08:25:09 PM new
BEFORE ANYONE JUMPS ON ME: I DO NOT EQUATE REPUBLICANS &/OR BUSH TO BEING NAZIS!!!
That said, I am noticing a resemblance in reaction by our Right and the Nazi party to films that have absolutely nothing to do with them.
Our neocons are reacting negatively to "The Day After" as if it were a documentary condemning their position on global warming and current business practices.
The Nazi Party tried to shut down Fritz Lang's film, M, because its original title ("Murderers Among Us" ) had them believing it was about them.
Such knee-jerk reactions!
edited to remove UBB-caused winkie...
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
[ edited by bunnicula on May 29, 2004 08:26 PM ]
posted on May 29, 2004 08:57:01 PM new
"envirotruth.org" is funded and sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a right wing organization dedicated to the "free market". This is hardly what I'd consider objective science. On their climate change page, they quote studies caried out by the Science and Environmental Policy Project, which is funded by EXXON...duh....
