The Greenhouse effect, Hollywood, and an attempt to prey on the fears of the populace (550 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.42 on 23 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by AndraSidan (View user info) at 2004-06-26 23:54:09 EDT
In the vein of recent disaster movies such as The Core, Armageddon, Volcano, Deep Impact and others The Day After Tomorrow combines ridiculous special effects, mass destruction, and some very suspect science. "As a climatologist, I'm concerned that [a] putative backlash could be caused by scientific nonsense," wrote Patrick J. Michaels as he itemized the film's meteorological flaws in his Washington Post article "Apocalypse Soon?" Michaels points out that politicians such as Al Gore are already capitalizing on public fears that are exploited in this movie. He worries that leaders with an environmental agenda will "exaggerate this largely benign truth into a fictional apocalypse." He's not alone, as many experts are begging viewers not to take such ridiculously fabricated "science" as truth. Let us ignore the holes in logic big enough to drive a frozen ocean liner through, the incredibly inane dialogue, the plot "twists" that have been done so many times that a monkey could predict what will happen next. Instead, we will focus on Hollywood's seeming fascination with exaggeration of scientific truth coupled with a political agenda.
In The Day After Tomorrow, there is an obvious anti-Bush slant, and liberal politicians and environmentalists have used the movie as a mass propaganda campaign. The common belief is that the disaster will (unlike the days it took in the movie) take decades to transpire. This most recent Hollywood disaster movie wishes viewers to believe that a catastrophe due to the greenhouse effect is just around the corner. They assumption we are supposed to make is that George Bush is bringing that calamity closer and closer, and if he is reelected than we are contributing to the demise of the entire world. It is no accident that this movie was released so close to an election. We are being inundated with political jargon in our theatres, and while this is nothing new, in this occasion the politics is backed by nothing more than science based on misinterpretations and exaggerations.
I have no problem with those that say we must take care of our environment. Humans are stewards of the earth and it is our responsibility to take care of it. What bothers me is when an agenda is pushed (liberal or conservative, it doesn't matter) with nonsense science designed to take advantage of populist fears. In the case of Greenhouse warming, even several decades is abrupt. Many glaciologists hypothesize that it takes many thousands of years for an ice age to start. Of course, I don't expect a movie to be made about that, who wants to see a glacier melt for two hours? What I would like to see is a movie that pushes no agenda, but simply entertains without being tainted by obvious political design. Even more so, taking such a movie as The Day After Tomorrow and turning them into propaganda is even a greater travesty. Whether or not the makers of the movie had politics in mind, the movie has been used for political purposes on a grand scale. The Greenhouse effect has been exaggerated to the public for years. Is it no wonder, with a movie cataclysm stemming directly from this "disaster waiting to happen," that mass fears are so easily preyed upon.
There is certainly some truth to the "greenhouse effect" we here so much about. What most people don't know is that the magnitude is considerably less than what is portrayed by the media. More research is needed before we jump to conclusions about the supposed devastating effects of greenhouse warming. There are many scientists that are skeptical of the "large scale temperature change and catastrophic environmental effects" claims. Yet these scientists are shut out of the public arena (and obviously from any environmental disaster movie that Hollywood wished to produce), left to trumpet their concerns to deaf ears. The Day After Tomorrow is just another link in a long chain designed to raise mass fears about unsubstantiated claims. It is pathetic that Americans are being led to believe them through a summer popcorn flick.
User Reviews
Submitted by doctorj24 (user info) at 2005-06-20 18:04:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Great points, keep up the thinking Andra.
Submitted by Falco (user info) at 2004-08-11 17:31:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
COuld have been done better, by me obviously but well we cant all be me.
Submitted by KoolMang (user info) at 2004-08-11 17:29:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by AndraSidan (user info) at 2004-07-09 20:27:47 (#)
Ranking: -2
Why such a high rating for three words and a picture? Here's a -2 to balence it out.
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2004-07-08 20:55:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
People like you are scared of people like me because I'm not afraid of anything.
Go clean your room and fuck your dad with the lights off.
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2004-07-08 20:30:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-06-27 21:58:37 (#)
Ranking: -2
blah blah blah blah.
Just so you know, I'd have given you a -2 even if you HAD thought to use more than one paragraph, but I'd have meant it less.
JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP AND DIE YOU FUCKING USELESS CUNT.
I agree with Ashlee on this one.
blah blah blah blah...
Submitted by checkyourmail (user info) at 2004-07-05 02:09:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
rock on!
Submitted by Dashel (user info) at 2004-06-28 20:47:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Of course the movie isn't meant to be taken literaly, but people do! If they don't read, watch the news, or seek out the information by themselves, they are left with Hollywood's interpretation (or any filmmaker's)and not the whole truth so you make an excellent point in saying that even though this is just a movie it's what some people base their beliefs on. Plus, I could barely stay awake....hahaha, wolves can freeze to death too..you know that as well as I do Andra. Well written.
Submitted by munado at 2004-06-27 22:16:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well me and my 9-year old nephew liked the movie. Repeat, MOVIE. It was a MOVIE.
'doink' get it?
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-06-27 21:58:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
blah blah blah blah.
Just so you know, I'd have given you a -2 even if you HAD thought to use more than one paragraph, but I'd have meant it less.
Submitted by RideJohnnyRide (user info) at 2004-06-27 21:42:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Not like there was any sort of political slant on this article....
Submitted by GrizzlyHunter62 (user info) at 2004-06-27 21:18:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Your very point that this movie is way over the top is the very reason that some environmentalists didn't like the movie, since it makes the greenhouse effect look like a farce.
Unless you're REALLY naive/ignorant...then MAYBE the movie might make you paranoid about that very idea...
I haven't seen the movie though. Just read about it.
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2004-06-27 11:19:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's the American way.
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-06-27 02:15:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Some of the 'alternative' press(what they're an alternative to is 'responsible journalism', in case you were wondering)are quoting the movie 'The Day After Tomorrow' like it was gospel.
Better not let them see 'The Towering Inferno' or 'Jaws', they'll never go into an office building or to the beach again.
One other thing: solid blocks of text make the baby Jesus cry.
Submitted by AndraSidan (user info) at 2004-06-27 00:57:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, and Rixes, I would definitely agree with you about scientists changing their tune a lot, I read an old Scientific American (I believe) article about "global cooling" and it's harmful effects. (OH NO!!) In my (admittedly nowhere near deep enough) studies I have not seen solid proof that "global warming" really exists. There is no evidence that it is not merely a natural cycle of the earth's climate. However, I didn't mention that in my article, one reason being that I was aiming more at Hollywood and the politics surrounding the movie more so than a scientific discussion, thanks for pointing that out.
Submitted by AndraSidan (user info) at 2004-06-27 00:51:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah, I typed it in word with paragraphs and indentations, it got messed up in the transition. And the line about a frozen ocean liner was a reference to the movie.
Submitted by Rixes (user info) at 2004-06-27 00:49:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Needs paragraphs and indetation.
It's not the media thats gullible, its the scientists who tell them shit. Years ago some scientists were convinced that global cooling was actually happening, they change their tune every couple years. Science has pretty much proved global warming doesn't exist though.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-06-27 00:13:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
eh don't listen to me, andra. i be drunk and i am mumbling nonsense
here's a +1 for me replying too much
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-06-27 00:12:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Geodescent (user info) at 2004-06-27 00:09:44 (#)
Ranking: 1
What's pathetic is that Americans are dumb enough to believe it in the first place.
_________________________________________________
what's pathetic is that you are stupid enough to believe every
stereotype you hear
Submitted by Geodescent (user info) at 2004-06-27 00:09:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
What's pathetic is that Americans are dumb enough to believe it in the first place.
Submitted by corn_nugget (user info) at 2004-06-27 00:08:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
This sentence is weird: "Let us ignore the holes in logic big enough to drive a frozen ocean liner through".
Are frozen ocean liners BIGGER than thawed ones?
Just curious.
***
As to the topic, yes... the media people are a bunch of bitches who exaggerate everything... This is not a new phenomenon. I think people are realizing it more and more these days.
Submitted by Falco (user info) at 2004-06-27 00:07:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
actually they do know why, if you've bothered to do 2years of geology at uni you will see certain cycles that occur.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-06-27 00:06:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
okay. political agenda - maybe movies not very good - maybe
i watch discovery and national geographic a lot. now, as you say it would takes thousands
of years for an ice age to come about, well yeah, before we begand chopping down millions
of acres of vegetation that is critical to the ozone. and before we began burning
fossil fuels at an alarming rate.
there is a study being done up in alaska. people actually measure how much a galcier moves
per year. a few glaciers up there have been moving at a rate of 20 feet per year,
in the last 5 years they have moved 3x that. also these scientists have been
studying the ecosystems ie tree rings, migrations, salt water and fresh waterlevels,
and there have been drastic changes in the past few years. things that would naturally take
hundreds to thousands of years.
before i get jumped for this reply... i am NOT saying i am naive enough
to belive it will happen tomorrow... but i think we have to change some policies
very soon before we destroy this planet.
recyle recycle recycle!!!
Submitted by orangejuice (user info) at 2004-06-27 00:00:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Very true, the fact is, nobody can say what's causing the change in weather patterns anyway, simply because nobody has witnessed anything like this before.
But anyway, film's like these just go to show the absaloute naivity of the general public. Their constant ability to believe whatever the media says, in any form, is pathetic.
Who give's a shit anyway? Nothing will happen within our lifetime, let future generations worry about it, by then we'll be supping some form of weird tea called Kriglignian Poofarg or something, with martians and people with arses for faces from Uranus.
Not to worry kid's, keep driving, keep smoking, it's fun and its not effecting us lot.
baaaahahaha