NationStates Jolt Archive

The Day After Tomorrow
...is the stupidest movie I've seen all year...

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/dayafter.jpg

Don't get me wrong, the graphic destruction scenes were awesome, but they had to throw in some politcial agenda message every 5 minutes. By the end of the movie, the refugees from America cross into mexio (haha, how the tables turn... the americans trying to get into mexico! Does mexico even HAVE an INS? :P) and the Cheney-look-alike Vice president broadcasts out a message saying "We were wrong! We should have listened to your complaints about global warming!" :P It was just stupid!

40 years ago, they said to us "The earth will end in 20 years because of global warming!" Now, they say "The earth will end in 100 years because of global warming!" I can jsut imagine... 100 years from now... "The Earth will end in 500 years because of global warming!" Hmmm...

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/cts.jpg (http://jordansean.blogspot.com/)

global warming and recycleing are all part of the evil liberal elitist agenda to turn america into a bunch of dirty pot smoking hippys.

global warming and recycleing are all part of the evil liberal elitist agenda to turn america into a bunch of dirty pot smoking hippys.precisely :P

I've never seen the movie, but I think that yes, global warming is a concern. We need to do some more stuff for the environment.

I've never seen the movie, but I think that yes, global warming is a concern. We need to do some more stuff for the environment.

bullshit!

I've never seen the movie, but I think that yes, global warming is a concern. We need to do some more stuff for the environment.like?

i thought they were WAY too cruel in portraying the president and vice president (obviously meant to be the current officeholders) as bumbling moron and puppet master

i thought it was hilarious, my friend and I laughed all the way through it

i thought they were WAY too cruel in portraying the president and vice president (obviously meant to be the current officeholders) as bumbling moron and puppet master

Yeah. They could have at least actaully made something up. :lol:

i thought they were WAY too cruel in portraying the president and vice president (obviously meant to be the current officeholders) as bumbling moron and puppet master

Yeah. They could have at least actaully made something up. :lol:

not funny

i thought they were WAY too cruel in portraying the president and vice president (obviously meant to be the current officeholders) as bumbling moron and puppet masterdid you see how emotionless they were when the pres died?

"Sir, the president... their motorcade was destroyed, they didn't make it."

"Oh, ok. What's the status of the mexican borders?" :P

So if global warming isn't a concern, why did the Bush Administration order both the EPA and NASA to eliminate all questions relating to this issue in any reports? Why hide the data that government scientists produce on this matter? Why do the rest of the G8 governments recognize that this is a legitimate concern, yet our own government hides the scientific data their own people produce?

Just an example of the dangers: in Alaska, oil companies build and repair roads only during the season when permafrost is stable. 10 years ago, that season was 200 days long. Today, that same season is less than 100 days. Several villages in Alaska that are built on permafrost are seeing drastic changes in stability and quite a few have even had to relocate. This is not a normal weather pattern. Nor can it be explained merely by stating that the earth is going through a natural cycle. Natural cycles take hundreds, even thousands of years, if you choose to accept those who refute evidence on global warming. This type of occurence flies right in the face of that.

So what do you folks suggest we do about global warming.. if it even exists?

So what do you folks suggest we do about gloabl warming.. if it even exists?

why stop all industrial growth of course!

I saw the movie. I liked it a lot, as it was a good disaster flick. However, I found the science horrid. While global warming may be happening, global climate change would take many generations. And it'd be impossible for earthquakes to result from it.
I also found that it was an unfair jab at the Bush Administration. The Vice President, the central Administration figure in the movie, is a Dick Cheney lookalike. And I've always agreed with him on Kyoto.
But the movie was, if anything, philosophical. It showed that we are powerless to stop the forces of nature. It also showed that in times of disaster, it's a good thing to keep hope alive. So overall, I liked it, though as I said, the science is unfounded.

not funny

if it wasnt funny why was i laughing?

there were many scenes in the movie that were supposed to be serious that made me laugh that scene where they said the prez died was one of them, i expected the vice prez to break out in a shiteating grin

So what do you folks suggest we do about gloabl warming.. if it even exists?

why stop all industrial growth of course!i can't tell if you're being sarcastic...

not funny

if it wasnt funny why was i laughing?

there were many scenes in the movie that were supposed to be serious that made me laugh that scene where they said the prez died was one of them, i expected the vice prez to break out in a shiteating grin

i meant what myrth said

not funny

if it wasnt funny why was i laughing?

there were many scenes in the movie that were supposed to be serious that made me laugh that scene where they said the prez died was one of them, i expected the vice prez to break out in a shiteating grin

i meant what myrth said
However, in the movie, the president didn't seem like a moron to me. He just seemed to be there to be, well, presidential. His role was like the role of the president in Independence Day, only much smaller.

not funny

if it wasnt funny why was i laughing?

there were many scenes in the movie that were supposed to be serious that made me laugh that scene where they said the prez died was one of them, i expected the vice prez to break out in a shiteating grin

i meant what myrth said
However, in the movie, the president didn't seem like a moron to me. He just seemed to be there to be, well, presidential. His role was like the role of the president in Independence Day, only much smaller.Are you kidding? in ID4, the president was a hero and a main character... in this movie, the president is in like 2 or 3 scenes

there actually was a book out a few years back (probably 15) that said that the sudden ice age was gonna happen
in some year that has already passed.

i didtn read it myself but i saw it discussed on a tv talk show. he wrote that glaciers could develop in a matter of weeks.
very similar to this movie this must be where they got the notion
i think it was even a big seller although i doubt anyone bought arctic gear on the basis of it

there actually was a book out a few years back (probably 15) that said that the sudden ice age was gonna happen
in some year that has already passed.

i didtn read it myself but i saw it discussed on a tv talk show. he wrote that glaciers could develop in a matter of weeks.
very similar to this movie this must be where they got the notion
i think it was even a big seller although i doubt anyone bought arctic gear on the basis of itlike I said, they keep saying 20 years from now, or higher... it keeps getting farther and farther away :)

And is there really anything we can do about it? I mean, the people who are pushing this are the same people who don't want to give up a few rights for the sake of national security... but they want to give up everything industrial for the sake of an unreal idea like global warming?

and it wont matter much what WE decide to do considering the increasing pollution out of asia as it develops. china and india are going to surpass us in green house gas emmissions soon if they arent already. the air over beijing is so thick you cant see the sun

It was a somewhat cool movie, the jabs at Cheney were clearly politically motivated and somewhat cheapened the movie, in my book. If I wanted to see lib-er-uhl propoganda I could get Bowling for Columbine.

the special effects in bowling for columbine sucked

I just saw Shrek 2, I thought it was funny. Don't know about Day after Tomorow. I tend to hate political Motivation in just about anything.

I just saw Shrek 2, I thought it was funny. Don't know about Day after Tomorow. I tend to hate political Motivation in just about anything.Shrek 2 was cool up until they started singing ricky martin... it went downhill from there :) (that was, of course, the end)

And just when i thought it was over.. we see donkey/dragon offspring... *shivers*

global warming started long ago - did you know that the polar ice caps once reached past New York!

Just look at them now.

AND IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT!!!

You should have given a spoiler alert, lol. :wink:

You should have given a spoiler alert, lol. :wink:


the movie's plot is so bad it cant be spoiled
just go for the special effects and to laugh at how stupid it is

I just saw Shrek 2, I thought it was funny. Don't know about Day after Tomorow. I tend to hate political Motivation in just about anything.Shrek 2 was cool up until they started singing ricky martin... it went downhill from there :) (that was, of course, the end)

And just when i thought it was over.. we see donkey/dragon offspring... *shivers*

Thank God I didn't see the offspring!!

i thought they were WAY too cruel in portraying the president and vice president (obviously meant to be the current officeholders) as bumbling moron and puppet master

cruel...why?
...because it's true?
...because its not nice to say that of the chief executive?
...or because you like Mr. Bush and you just dont like the first ammendment?

i thought they were WAY too cruel in portraying the president and vice president (obviously meant to be the current officeholders) as bumbling moron and puppet master

cruel...why?
...because it's true?
...because its not nice to say that of the chief executive?
...or because you like Mr. Bush and you just dont like the first ammendment?

maybe because its not nice to be mean to people!

I thought the movie itself was quite good, but yeah, the theme for greener political action got a little annoying. kinda like a high-pitched, nasal whine during Beethoven's 5th symphony.

i thought they were WAY too cruel in portraying the president and vice president (obviously meant to be the current officeholders) as bumbling moron and puppet master

cruel...why?
...because it's true?
...because its not nice to say that of the chief executive?
...or because you like Mr. Bush and you just dont like the first ammendment?

because it was just mean. they dint give perry king a dozen lines to say as president. everything was handled by the vice president.

dont get me on my opinion of the president. i get off on a rant and pretty soon im incoherently yelling at the monitor and the cat looks at me funny.

It was a good movie, although the science was wrong, but they did "justify" it in the movie. Yes the political messages were fucked up, but the great disaster scenes overshadowed it.

I thought the movie itself was quite good, but yeah, the theme for greener political action got a little annoying. kinda like a high-pitched, nasal whine during Beethoven's 5th symphony. :lol:

I've never seen the movie, but I think that yes, global warming is a concern. We need to do some more stuff for the environment.like?

Recycling, idiot. Maybe if you and other people actually cared about this environment, we wouldn't have idiots who don't give a crap about the environment.

That makes absolutly no sense whatsoever.

I've never seen the movie, but I think that yes, global warming is a concern. We need to do some more stuff for the environment.like?

Recycling, idiot. Maybe if you and other people actually cared about this environment, we wouldn't have idiots who don't give a crap about the environment.hey man, I recycle, idiot :P

But what will recycling really do? OK, we got the landfills reduced slightly... what about all the pollution?

I've never seen the movie, but I think that yes, global warming is a concern. We need to do some more stuff for the environment.like?

Recycling, idiot. Maybe if you and other people actually cared about this environment, we wouldn't have idiots who don't give a crap about the environment.hey man, I recycle, idiot :P

But what will recycling really do? OK, we got the landfills reduced slightly... what about all the pollution?

Wind power, solar power.....

I've never seen the movie, but I think that yes, global warming is a concern. We need to do some more stuff for the environment.like?

Recycling, idiot. Maybe if you and other people actually cared about this environment, we wouldn't have idiots who don't give a crap about the environment.hey man, I recycle, idiot :P

But what will recycling really do? OK, we got the landfills reduced slightly... what about all the pollution?

Every little bit helps. We as humans should try to keep the pollution level down. Give our natural resources some time to replenish themselves. Because of us, whole species have been wiped off the face of the Earth. Sooner or later, every living thing will die out...including humans.

Just wait until we have the technology to get off this rock and live on another planet. Then the fun begins. :twisted:

I've never seen the movie, but I think that yes, global warming is a concern. We need to do some more stuff for the environment.like?

Recycling, idiot. Maybe if you and other people actually cared about this environment, we wouldn't have idiots who don't give a crap about the environment.hey man, I recycle, idiot :P

But what will recycling really do? OK, we got the landfills reduced slightly... what about all the pollution?

Wind power, solar power.....Yeah, that'll be the day... every car in the world running on solar power ^_^

And as far as industries go... you're going to convert light into electricity into some other kind of energy? gee, for an environmentalist, you sure don't know how to conserve energy lol

You people are all foolish! For christ sake, it is just a film!!! Get over it!

... and a good film I would say.

You people are all foolish! For christ sake, it is just a film!!! Get over it!

... and a good film I would say.

Films make us think.

Oh, by the way, I saw Troy today. Holy Jesus Dried Mangoes Christ, I swear it's the best movie I ever saw.

You people are all foolish! For christ sake, it is just a film!!! Get over it!

... and a good film I would say.

Films make us think.

Oh, by the way, I saw Troy today. Holy Jesus Dried Mangoes Christ, I swear it's the best movie I ever saw.

Yes, but their is no need to strain your brain with your pedantic nitpicking.

global warming and recycleing are all part of the evil liberal elitist agenda to turn america into a bunch of dirty pot smoking hippys.

WOuld you rather be knee deep in icky milk jugs and baby diapers? NO! So quit yer bitchin', redneck.

The only people making this movie political is the American Right. And it shows what a bunch of weak, vain, insecure narcissists subject to a persecution complex they are, when they are obliged to point at an off-the-shelf blockbuster disaster movie and go "OMG! It's all a lefty political conspiracy!!!"

Get real. It is only a disaster movie. Exaggeration is the whole point! It isn't even the first one where the weather is the culprit. Christ, the director made Independance Day, do you remember what a flag-waver that was? How can he suddenly be in the business of making left-wing propaganda? Maybe because he's not? Maybe because it's just supposed to be a bit of fun?

Honestly. If you like that sort of thing, go and watch it, if you don't, go watch something else. Just don't spout this environmentalist propaganda BS, it only makes anyone saying it look stupid.

The only people making this movie political is the American Right. And it shows what a bunch of weak, vain, insecure narcissists subject to a persecution complex they are, when they are obliged to point at an off-the-shelf blockbuster disaster movie and go "OMG! It's all a lefty political conspiracy!!!"

Get real. It is only a disaster movie. Exaggeration is the whole point! It isn't even the first one where the weather is the culprit. Christ, the director made Independance Day, do you remember what a flag-waver that was? How can he suddenly be in the business of making left-wing propaganda? Maybe because he's not? Maybe because it's just supposed to be a bit of fun?

Honestly. If you like that sort of thing, go and watch it, if you don't, go watch something else. Just don't spout this environmentalist propaganda BS, it only makes anyone saying it look stupid.umm TG... have you even visited the movie official website? It's nothing but a Global Warming activist site :)

umm TG... have you even visited the movie official website? It's nothing but a Global Warming activist site :)
Been there, done that, downloaded the trailer. You are reading far too much into it.

NEVER criticise anything with Jake Gyllenhaal in it...... :evil:

So what do you folks suggest we do about global warming.. if it even exists?

Climate change has been a noticable problem for the last decade dude. Where the hell have you been?

So what do you folks suggest we do about global warming.. if it even exists?

Climate change has been a noticable problem for the last decade dude. Where the hell have you been?

Everyone knows that RMT lives in a cave.

Have to agree with Tactical Grace, it would be a bit of a crap film if it followed the scietific evidence.

"Good lord, New York will be totally submerged in 100 years."

Not a great disaster flick if the water only rises a few inches a year!!!

I just want to see it to see Homo sapiens get thier comeuppance for the mess they have made. Should be fun, wish I could live to see the real thing though. :lol:

LOL

does anyone remember the scene where they're being chased by the frost into the library and then they get to the room and shout 'quick! close the door!'? i burst out into hysteria at that, i was almost expecting them to lock it :lol:
i really hope everyone else in the cinema got why i was laughing, otherwise i'd look pretty stupid...

LOL

does anyone remember the scene where they're being chased by the frost into the library and then they get to the room and shout 'quick! close the door!'? i burst out into hysteria at that, i was almost expecting them to lock it :lol:
i really hope everyone else in the cinema got why i was laughing, otherwise i'd look pretty stupid...

:lol: I am soooo glad I didn't watch this one.

umm TG... have you even visited the movie official website? It's nothing but a Global Warming activist site :)
Been there, done that, downloaded the trailer. You are reading far too much into it.
It's not just the right wing that's politicizing it. MoveOn.org has a bunch of literature concerning this. Besides, Roland Emmerich, a known leftist, made the first move, as the presidential administration in this movie is clearly modeled on the Bush Administration. He even goes as far as to make the vice president, a Dick Cheney lookalike, as the main villain.

:(

sigh, too bad, I had looked forward to seeing this movie, I'm supposed to today actually...because of the previews, the graphics and effects looked most interesting..
but I'm not finding very many good reviews..too bad if they are correct, they really could have made a stunning movie

:(

sigh, too bad, I had looked forward to seeing this movie, I'm supposed to today actually...because of the previews, the graphics and effects looked most interesting..
but I'm not finding very many good reviews..too bad if they are correct, they really could have made a stunning movie
Relax. It is an interesting movie, and a very good disaster flick. Just remember, though, it's as improbable as aliens blowing cities to smitherines.

About global warming and the conservatives that still believe that the world was created in 7 days and think that evolution theory and dinnosaurs are an inventtion of bearded lefties...guess who is stupid? :P

If you choose to view this movie as a politics/religious debate, I PITY YOU! :roll: PEEPS! IT'S A MOVIE! IT'S FOR ENTERTAINMENT!

I have to admit it was one of the best movies I've watched ever. :lol: And my heart still skips beats when I think back at the images. :shock:

The day after tommorow is tuesday


POST + 1!!!!!

The day after tommorow is tuesday


POST + 1!!!!!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

where will you die?...The day after tommorow :twisted:


P.S.why is NYC always getting destroyed?

where will you die?...The day after tommorow :twisted:


P.S.why is NYC always getting destroyed?

Cause no one really cares when Idatedmysister, Arkansas gets wiped out.

I read a newspaper article on disaster films and NYC. Apparently, it's because it's a globally recognized city.

It also talked about "new rules" since 9/11. No buildings destroyed, no terrorists, etc.

I have no desire to see it anyway. It looks kinda lame

Films make us think.

Oh, by the way, I saw Troy today. Holy Jesus Dried Mangoes Christ, I swear it's the best movie I ever saw.

yeah i loved troy, too
but did the glaring historical inaccuracies bother you as much as the scientific ones in "the day after tomorrow" did?

I find it rather sad that people still have no idea what the debate surrounding global warming is about.

That our planet is warming cannot be denied. It is a fact. The trends are there and we have evidence of this happening before in the past.

The question is whether we as a species are speeding up the process. Another aspect is what we will do about it. That is the debate.

The two people who said global warming and recycling are bullshit must not live in the real world. If you ever been driving by a large city either in the morning when the sun has just come up or just before it goes down, there is usually a layer of black smog. That creates green house gases which end up eating away at the ozone layer. Then harlmful UV rays get through, thousands get terrible sun burns and end up with skin cancer. Venus has no ozone layer and has been proven to be the hottest planet (sun doesn't count) in our solar system. The UV rays have burned the hell out of that planet and it's surface is unbearably hot. Unless we want the earth to end up like that in the near future, then we should not ignore the warnings. As for recycling, if we don't then we'll run out of resources and die. We recycle and re-create things so that they can be used over so we don't need to continue to destroy the planet. Unless you guys want to use up our remaining resources and have nothing left in 100 years (population increase and gorwing needs). Would you guys like that? Well unless your twisted, I hope not. I'm not an enviromentalist by the way, infact I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum. I see that we'll need these resources and our planet in the future to be able to live comfortably. I saw the movie, great special effects, cheesy plot. Mixed feelings on it.

Any Canadians out there? Watch The Nature Of Things with David Suzuki. Global warming does exist, it is a problem, and we can do something about it, both individually and collectively.

I find it rather sad that people still have no idea what the debate surrounding global warming is about.

That our planet is warming cannot be denied. It is a fact. The trends are there and we have evidence of this happening before in the past.

The question is whether we as a species are speeding up the process. Another aspect is what we will do about it. That is the debate.
While I don't deny that the planet is warming, I find it appalling that no one looks at past weather temperatures. A similar global warming trend happened back in the thirties. It's possible that this is just a warming trend that'll last a few decades, and then it'll get cooler.

I find it rather sad that people still have no idea what the debate surrounding global warming is about.

That our planet is warming cannot be denied. It is a fact. The trends are there and we have evidence of this happening before in the past.

The question is whether we as a species are speeding up the process. Another aspect is what we will do about it. That is the debate.
While I don't deny that the planet is warming, I find it appalling that no one looks at past weather temperatures. A similar global warming trend happened back in the thirties. It's possible that this is just a warming trend that'll last a few decades, and then it'll get cooler.

Yes thats nice but its not what the issue is about :wink:

those who belive this is a real problem should now be pissed off about this movie which will only convince people its a big joke which I believed to begin with and this movie was hilarious. I love the anti american trash thrown in with us crossing into mexico and our country being covered and of course the whole us on our knees to the third world bleh. The movie sucked. And its likely that years from now it will cool just like the weather every day goes up and down so does the globe I also loved the films touting of the kyoto treaty which would have destroyed the us economy

The Day After Tomorrow
...is the stupidest movie I've seen all year...

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/dayafter.jpg

Don't get me wrong, the graphic destruction scenes were awesome, but they had to throw in some politcial agenda message every 5 minutes. By the end of the movie, the refugees from America cross into mexio (haha, how the tables turn... the americans trying to get into mexico! Does mexico even HAVE an INS? :P) and the Cheney-look-alike Vice president broadcasts out a message saying "We were wrong! We should have listened to your complaints about global warming!" :P It was just stupid!

40 years ago, they said to us "The earth will end in 20 years because of global warming!" Now, they say "The earth will end in 100 years because of global warming!" I can jsut imagine... 100 years from now... "The Earth will end in 500 years because of global warming!" Hmmm...

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/cts.jpg (http://jordansean.blogspot.com/)

I'm going to see it today. Guess i'll see for myself. It just seems like the kind of movie I can have fun watching with my friends. Doesn't seem to "deep" if you know what I mean.

It was a good disaster movie which I think did something very well, it made you connect with the characters through little back stories in their lives.

It sounds like some leftist wankfest, but whatever, the disaster scenes look good. I'll see it when I can rent it for $1, which is probably more than it's worth, but I want to see the special effects.

This is a &%^$ good movie so do not go saying its crap this movie has a good story line and it is right even if just 100 or 500 years from now global warming will be a big issue if we screw up the earth now we will be giving the earth over to our childrens childrens childrens as a friged up planet. The movie is pointing out that if take care of our planet it will take care of us.

It's not just the right wing that's politicizing it. MoveOn.org has a bunch of literature concerning this. Besides, Roland Emmerich, a known leftist, made the first move, as the presidential administration in this movie is clearly modeled on the Bush Administration. He even goes as far as to make the vice president, a Dick Cheney lookalike, as the main villain.
Virtually all political comment I have seen on this movie has been from the right, feeling strangely threatened by what is only a movie.

The lookalikes are in the eye of the beholder. To me, they are white guys in suits. Again, I don't see the point in reading so much into it.

And as for the director being a known leftist, I don't see that reflected in the movies he has previously directed.

Why can't people accept the movie for what it is? If people are that bothered by its alleged political content, they must be really insecure.

It's not just the right wing that's politicizing it. MoveOn.org has a bunch of literature concerning this. Besides, Roland Emmerich, a known leftist, made the first move, as the presidential administration in this movie is clearly modeled on the Bush Administration. He even goes as far as to make the vice president, a Dick Cheney lookalike, as the main villain.
Virtually all political comment I have seen on this movie has been from the right, feeling strangely threatened by what is only a movie.

The lookalikes are in the eye of the beholder. To me, they are white guys in suits. Again, I don't see the point in reading so much into it.

And as for the director being a known leftist, I don't see that reflected in the movies he has previously directed.

Why can't people accept the movie for what it is? If people are that bothered by its alleged political content, they must be really insecure.
Or just really defensive. But, both left and right are making noises. As I said, MoveOn.org had a heyday with this movie.

I think I will go with the insecure, and the persecution complex. :D

(I've seen the mauling it got on FOX News). Silly, silly people.

I think I will go with the insecure, and the persecution complex. :D

(I've seen the mauling it got on FOX News). Silly, silly people.
Well it ain't confined to the right. Believe me, the left acts like a dying animal as much as the right is. Actually, the left is really dying now, but that's another topic.

I just saw the movie and I think it's awsome.

It's not just the right wing that's politicizing it. MoveOn.org has a bunch of literature concerning this. Besides, Roland Emmerich, a known leftist, made the first move, as the presidential administration in this movie is clearly modeled on the Bush Administration. He even goes as far as to make the vice president, a Dick Cheney lookalike, as the main villain.
Virtually all political comment I have seen on this movie has been from the right, feeling strangely threatened by what is only a movie.

The lookalikes are in the eye of the beholder. To me, they are white guys in suits. Again, I don't see the point in reading so much into it.

And as for the director being a known leftist, I don't see that reflected in the movies he has previously directed.

Why can't people accept the movie for what it is? If people are that bothered by its alleged political content, they must be really insecure.
Or just really defensive. But, both left and right are making noises. As I said, MoveOn.org had a heyday with this movie.
All MoveOn.org had to do with this movie is tell it's supporters that the movie was about global warming but had damaging inaccuracies in it. They did acknowledge that (der) it would get people to start talking about global warming as an issue and that it's members should take this opportunity to get more accurate information in the hands of people who have seen it.

I don't doubt the director really did make Bush/Cheney look alikes, as previously he had Godzilla kill Siskel & Ebert. So frikkin' what? If global warming DID happen the way its depicted in the film guess who the villians would be?

Man you guys are babies. (complaintants)

It's not just the right wing that's politicizing it. MoveOn.org has a bunch of literature concerning this. Besides, Roland Emmerich, a known leftist, made the first move, as the presidential administration in this movie is clearly modeled on the Bush Administration. He even goes as far as to make the vice president, a Dick Cheney lookalike, as the main villain.
Virtually all political comment I have seen on this movie has been from the right, feeling strangely threatened by what is only a movie.

The lookalikes are in the eye of the beholder. To me, they are white guys in suits. Again, I don't see the point in reading so much into it.

And as for the director being a known leftist, I don't see that reflected in the movies he has previously directed.

Why can't people accept the movie for what it is? If people are that bothered by its alleged political content, they must be really insecure.
Or just really defensive. But, both left and right are making noises. As I said, MoveOn.org had a heyday with this movie.
All MoveOn.org had to do with this movie is tell it's supporters that the movie was about global warming but had damaging inaccuracies in it. They did acknowledge that (der) it would get people to start talking about global warming as an issue and that it's members should take this opportunity to get more accurate information in the hands of people who have seen it.

I don't doubt the director really did make Bush/Cheney look alikes, as previously he had Godzilla kill Siskel & Ebert. So frikkin' what? If global warming DID happen the way its depicted in the film guess who the villians would be?

Man you guys are babies. (complaintants)
Mother nature would be the villain.
Anyhow, MoveOn.org recruited their members to hand out pamphlets at movie theaters, saying things such as "this is what the Bush administration doesn't want you to see". Too bad they weren't at the movie theater I saw it at, or else I'd be posting excerts from that pamphlet. It said some very interesting things, no doubt.

Mother nature would be the villain.

The rest of your post really just re-iterated what I said....so for this-you don't think the head-in-the-sand administration that said it wasn't real wouldn't look ass stupid if it suddenly did? They're just like the dumbass who wouldn't close the beach because of the shark. Is this the first movie you've seen?

Mother nature would be the villain.

The rest of your post really just re-iterated what I said....so for this-you don't think the head-in-the-sand administration that said it wasn't real wouldn't look ass stupid if it suddenly did? They're just like the dumbass who wouldn't close the beach because of the shark. Is this the first movie you've seen?
Of course it's the first movie I've seen. In fact, I was born only a few days ago [sarcasm].
And how the hell is the Bush Administration responsible for global warming? It happened over the past two centuries. And personally, I think nothing can be done to stop it. If all the cars, planes, powerplants, etc. stopped, then the world would only lower in temperature by a fraction of a degree.
Don't agree with me? Look up that Danish environmentalist (I keep forgeting his name).

Don't agree with me? Look up that Danish environmentalist (I keep forgeting his name).
Heh, I'm not much of an environmentalist, but I will say that Bjorn Lomborg has even less credibility than most. A lot of what he says is trite, uninformed nonsense, and I'm not even talking about the environmental stuff, I mean the background science and politics generally. The guy knows how to sell a book, but I wouldn't trust his assertions one bit.

All these disaster movies... Did anyone ever stop to think that if the just let it happen, and humanity ceased to exist how much better things would be? No more having to think, no more stress, no more saving the world, no more existing... Beauty and simplicity in simply not existing...

Ps: I saw the movie and tryed to stomach it untill the wolves attacked... that was just to much for it to save even the tiniest shred of credability.

that was just to much for it to save even the tiniest shred of credability.
For me it was lost with the other films by these dudes. Politics aside, man these guys suck. Godzilla was a travisty, ID4 as my friend points out gets shorter every time you watch it (and its such a good thing that macs are compatable with otherworldly systems-seeing as I can't even get my mac to work with half the shit on this planet....), just a bad track record. I didn't even go see this movie. Even Stargate dropped the ball.

I keep seeing these references to Dick Cheney in every review I've read about this movie. Who the f*** is Dick Cheney? Is he supposed to be someone important? Will someone explain this to me?


Greywollffe has spoken...

http://67.18.37.14/124/125/upload/av-476.jpg


King of Spades (http://198.70.62.5/home.asp)
It's a Warlock's Life (http://tswarlock.blogspot.com/)

I keep seeing these references to Dick Cheney in every review I've read about this movie. Who the f*** is Dick Cheney? Is he supposed to be someone important? Will someone explain this to me?


Greywollffe has spoken...

http://67.18.37.14/124/125/upload/av-476.jpg


King of Spades (http://198.70.62.5/home.asp)
It's a Warlock's Life (http://tswarlock.blogspot.com/)


Good Lord, Dick Cheney is the vice president of the USA. He is known for his conservatism. That is why the movie reviews talk about it, like the environmental stuff.

Good Lord, Dick Cheney is the vice president of the USA. He is known for his conservatism. That is why the movie reviews talk about it, like the environmental stuff.

Ah, that would explain things. I didn't know who the VP was. Didn't care, actually. But that does make sense, now that you mention it. 8)

I don't keep up with politics, news, etc. as my post obviously implies. :roll:

Greywollffe has spoken...

http://67.18.37.14/124/125/upload/av-476.jpg


King of Spades (http://198.70.62.5/home.asp)
It's a Warlock's Life (http://tswarlock.blogspot.com/)

All my friends went to go see it, so I went and saw it today.....I wasn't impressed....the statue of liberty would have been pushed over by a wave a fourth the size of that tsunami. And a tsunami in the Atlantic ocean is a stupid idea....

It was a massive storm surge from the big blizzard hurricane.

Good Lord, Dick Cheney is the vice president of the USA. He is known for his conservatism. That is why the movie reviews talk about it, like the environmental stuff.

Ah, that would explain things. I didn't know who the VP was. Didn't care, actually. But that does make sense, now that you mention it. 8)

I don't keep up with politics, news, etc. as my post obviously implies. :roll:

Greywollffe has spoken...

http://67.18.37.14/124/125/upload/av-476.jpg


King of Spades (http://198.70.62.5/home.asp)
It's a Warlock's Life (http://tswarlock.blogspot.com/)

You're joking right?

It was a massive storm surge from the big blizzard hurricane.

It's still a really dumb idea. It just wouldn't have happened like that. They would have had a massive freeze thaw effect that would have killed everything before a tsunami.

You're joking right?

Joking about what?


Greywollffe has spoken...

http://67.18.37.14/124/125/upload/av-476.jpg


King of Spades (http://198.70.62.5/home.asp)
It's a Warlock's Life (http://tswarlock.blogspot.com/)

You're joking right?

Joking about what?


Greywollffe has spoken...

http://67.18.37.14/124/125/upload/av-476.jpg


King of Spades (http://198.70.62.5/home.asp)
It's a Warlock's Life (http://tswarlock.blogspot.com/)

You didn't know who the Vice President was....well, okay, it's not like he's ever around to do anything, but still....

It was a massive storm surge from the big blizzard hurricane.

It's still a really dumb idea. It just wouldn't have happened like that. They would have had a massive freeze thaw effect that would have killed everything before a tsunami.

The massive freeze thaw effect was in the eye of the Hurricane that pulled super cooled air from the upper atmosphere. It started in Canada and moved south, the bad weather and the storm surge was peripheral effects of this hurricane.

You didn't know who the Vice President was....well, okay, it's not like he's ever around to do anything, but still....

LMAO!! That's funny. As for not knowing about the political structure of America's executive branch, I haven't read a paper in some time, and I stopped watching TV two years ago. Even when I did happen to turn on the television, it was mostly for Cartoon Network (http://www.cartoonnetwork.com) or Discovery Channel (http://www.discovery.com).


Greywollffe has spoken...

http://67.18.37.14/124/125/upload/av-476.jpg


King of Spades (http://198.70.62.5/home.asp)
It's a Warlock's Life (http://tswarlock.blogspot.com/)

http://www.club18-35.co.uk/gyllenhaal-jake.gif

I believe that's all that needs to be said about the quality of this film.

It was a massive storm surge from the big blizzard hurricane.

It's still a really dumb idea. It just wouldn't have happened like that. They would have had a massive freeze thaw effect that would have killed everything before a tsunami.

The massive freeze thaw effect was in the eye of the Hurricane that pulled super cooled air from the upper atmosphere. It started in Canada and moved south, the bad weather and the storm surge was peripheral effects of this hurricane.
You're forgetting a primary element-a giant wave hitting New York would look frickin' amazing, not mention highlight the unpreparedness towards what's happening (thus that wave in the Pacific is too 'common')

It is a movie by crappy over the top filmmakers, I don't think research was a big part of the budget or a consideration for the target audience.

It was a massive storm surge from the big blizzard hurricane.

It's still a really dumb idea. It just wouldn't have happened like that. They would have had a massive freeze thaw effect that would have killed everything before a tsunami.

The massive freeze thaw effect was in the eye of the Hurricane that pulled super cooled air from the upper atmosphere. It started in Canada and moved south, the bad weather and the storm surge was peripheral effects of this hurricane.
You're forgetting a primary element-a giant wave hitting New York would look frickin' amazing, not mention highlight the unpreparedness towards what's happening (thus that wave in the Pacific is too 'common')

It is a movie by crappy over the top filmmakers, I don't think research was a big part of the budget or a consideration for the target audience.

I'd say that this probably more worrying than what happens in that film...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/mega_tsunami_transcript.shtml

People can never distinguish the difference between tidal waves and tsunamis :roll:

It was a good movie...had some cute looking characters (you all agree deep down :wink: denials shall be taken as agreement LOL).

However, as for the impact of global warming, I found that The Day After Tomorrow proved to be little more than ultra-liberal media with a high-graphic and big budget facade. Despite this, I thought the movie was quite good.

Massive tidal waves and giant twisters? The northern hemisphere frozen? A bit too fantastic.

Uh...did anyone notice how both POTUS and the British Royal Family were wiped out? A bit of a political statement don't you think? (IT JUST SCREAMS IRAQ)

...

What is worse, is that left wing politicians in Australia are now freaking out via the media. One state premier even tried to use the movie as evidence!!!

I mean...seriously, what a joke.

But, most people won't look beyond its entertainment value. In fact, the in-your-face tree hugging nonsense only ever causes people to turn a deaf ear to environmentalists.

When will they learn...

Perhaps when New York freezes over huh :wink:

global warming and recycleing are all part of the evil liberal elitist agenda to turn america into a bunch of dirty pot smoking hippys.

Damn right! :wink:

The only people making this movie political is the American Right. And it shows what a bunch of weak, vain, insecure narcissists subject to a persecution complex they are, when they are obliged to point at an off-the-shelf blockbuster disaster movie and go "OMG! It's all a lefty political conspiracy!!!"

Get real. It is only a disaster movie. Exaggeration is the whole point! It isn't even the first one where the weather is the culprit. Christ, the director made Independance Day, do you remember what a flag-waver that was? How can he suddenly be in the business of making left-wing propaganda? Maybe because he's not? Maybe because it's just supposed to be a bit of fun?

Honestly. If you like that sort of thing, go and watch it, if you don't, go watch something else. Just don't spout this environmentalist propaganda BS, it only makes anyone saying it look stupid.

Had Tactical Grace ever studied film, he/she would realise that many movies have a hidden political agenda.

For example, a film in Australia "Rabbit Proof Fence" (though highly inaccurate and bordering on out right lying) recently revived the whole "stolen generation" nonsense purported by the radical left and indigenous activist groups. The film was made in such a way that the political message was subtle yet understandable.

I am afraid TG that Hollywood is prone to bias like everyone else.

Today's editorial from the Sydney Morning Herald addressed just this issue:

Lessons from a Caribbean disaster
May 31, 2004

There's Hollywood's latest; an apocolyptic take on sudden climate change and a world gone mad. And there's real life. True disaster swept across the border region of Haiti and the Dominican Republic like a tidal wave last week, killing about 2,000 people and razing entire neighbourhoods in its way. Fact and fiction, thus, dramatically collided. The severity of the real storms which hit the Caribbean were, undoubtedly, highly unusual. They also seem consistent with forecasts of increasingly frequent and intense tropical storms as global temperatures rise. It is poor science, however, to link one extreme weather event, no matter how devastating, to a gradually changing global climate.

There is a less contentious question, however, which seems to have been overlooked. Why did the Caribbean storms do so much damage on the ground? The terrible death toll was caused by raging floodwaters and mudslides. All tropical regions experience torrential downpours, with annual rainfalls of up to 660cm. Tropical forests should absorb and slow water flows, hold the soil and minimise flooding. However, when heavy rains fall over denuded land - which is not bound together by tree roots - the soil is washed away, river banks disintegrate and flash floods tear through villages and towns. It is large scale deforestation, through land clearing and commercial logging, which makes local communities so vulnerable in extreme storms.
Advertisement Advertisement

The island of Hispaniola, which Haiti and the Dominican Republic share, has lost most of its forest cover over the past two centuries. In Haitian territory, the United Nations estimates 97 per cent of forest cover is "impaired". On the Dominican Republic side of the border about 15 per cent of tropical forest cover remains. Previous floods have carried away much of the local topsoil, ruining large swathes of agricultural land. The resulting poverty means villagers continue to cut what timber remains for fuel, further damaging the environment upon which they depend. It is a vicious cycle, repeated in poor communities the world over.

Globally, human activity has destroyed about a third of the world's forests and woodlands. The rate of deforestation in tropical rainforests is even higher; half of all tropical forests have been cleared. Indonesia is the world's largest tropical timber exporter. An area equivalent in size to Switzerland is lost every year; much of it to illegal loggers. In 2002, scores of Indonesian holidaymakers were buried alive in mudslides because logger had ignored a ban applying to land uphill from a hot springs resort. Several deadly landslides have also swamped villages on the Indonesian island of Sumatra in recent years.

Tropical forests are often referred to as the earth's lung, and much scientific opinion now holds that their decreasing capacity to absorb greenhouse gases is the cause of climate change. There is an opposing school of thought, however, which asserts that global warming is simply part of a natural climate cycle. This scientific debate has some way to run. There are no such doubts, however, over the serious environmental damage wrought by deforestation, nor that poor, rural communities are most at risk.

SOURCE.
http://www.smh.com.au/editorial/index.html?from=lhsnav

COMMENT.
Let Hollywood have its fun with the long line of "disaster" movies. But to trivialise a real issue is to nobodys benefit.
There is too much real scientific evidence to show that damage is being done to the planet. And, quite simply, the planet is not disposable or recyclable.

Can we please not waste space with quotes from newspapers all the time? Just post the link and let us look!

Also...

Something I notice with these left wing greenies is that they have a lot of complaints, but no viable solutions.

They say solar power and wind power, but both have been proven a waste of time.

There are alternatives which I notice private enterprise (in Australia especially) and conservative groups have come up with that would work. Yet whenever a site is chosen for something etc...someone always finds a mysterious colony of endangered frog :shock:

Seriously, environmentalists cannot possibly be interested in coexisting with the environment. Their policies are directed towards wiping mankind from the face of the Earth...

No wonder they have so little political weight.

Well, here in Australia, the Greens are not lacking political weight. They are looking at 8-10% of the vote, and most likely the balance of power. I don't think I'll vote for them though, since they aren't very strong in major agricultural areas.

However, I do have some ideas about how to fix a couple of problems Australia has:
Salinity... A MAJOR issue in Australia that has prompted some very weird, and sometimes expensive ideas. (Whoever would have thought to build a 2000 km long, 4000 m high artificial mountain chain?) My idea is very basic: build desalinisation plants, and export the salt. We won't even need Lake Eyre to supply the world's salt demands.

Electricity... Another issue that comes up a lot here, mainly in summer from rolling blackouts on the hottest days. There are options other than the usual coal/oil, nuclear, wind/solar. I think hydroelectricity by itself won't help much, with the current drought. Instead, I think that a TIDAL power plant might be the way to go. Since people don't really like living near a power generator, somewhere like the Kimberleys would be a good place. It's also the place where the most power could be collected, I think.
By all means, use solar cells on roofs and windmills for small applications, but those power sources won't really provide enough power for the public as a whole.

Well, here in Australia, the Greens are not lacking political weight. They are looking at 8-10% of the vote, and most likely the balance of power. I don't think I'll vote for them though, since they aren't very strong in major agricultural areas.

However, I do have some ideas about how to fix a couple of problems Australia has:
Salinity... A MAJOR issue in Australia that has prompted some very weird, and sometimes expensive ideas. (Whoever would have thought to build a 2000 km long, 4000 m high artificial mountain chain?) My idea is very basic: build desalinisation plants, and export the salt. We won't even need Lake Eyre to supply the world's salt demands.

Electricity... Another issue that comes up a lot here, mainly in summer from rolling blackouts on the hottest days. There are options other than the usual coal/oil, nuclear, wind/solar. I think hydroelectricity by itself won't help much, with the current drought. Instead, I think that a TIDAL power plant might be the way to go. Since people don't really like living near a power generator, somewhere like the Kimberleys would be a good place. It's also the place where the most power could be collected, I think.
By all means, use solar cells on roofs and windmills for small applications, but those power sources won't really provide enough power for the public as a whole.

Uh...desalination plants are not used for that. They are used to produce fresh water which is what we need.

As for the Tidal power plant...there are other uses for it which I won't discuss right now. I'll wait a month. :)

However, geothermal energy is the way australia must go to provide electricity (there is 7,500 years worth of energy available 2km beneath the surface - accessible too). We can cut greenhouse emissions by 60% within 20 years (its a slow process...we cannot simply do everything in a few years).

Salinity is cureable. I recall some year 12 student at a private school 2 years back who did some experiment and found he could reverse the effects. I'd be interested to know if anyone has taken up his study and put some more time into it.

Australia can be a fertile land again...we just need to take better care of the land.

I was going to make a new thread but since this one already exists I thought it appropriate to put this here instead.

Could It Really Happen?

According to Al Gore, former Vice President of the USA, this is likely to be the question on millions of people's lips after seeing 20th Century Fox's new disaster film 'The Day After Tomorrow', and one that deserves an answer. Fortunately, rapid climate change is one area that the UK has taken the lead in researching, by funding the Rapid Climate Change programme (RAPID), the aim of which is to determine the probability of rapid climate change occurring.

The film
The Day After Tomorrow focuses on the research of climatologist Jack Hall, which indicates that global warming could trigger a rapid change in the global climate as a result of the Gulf Stream shutting down. Reports soon come in that this is already happening and a dramatic sequence of extreme weather events follow, which include a new Ice Age engulfing most of the Northern Hemisphere.

The facts
The Gulf Stream is a branch of the global thermohaline circulation (THC), driven by differences in temperature and salinity of sea water, that brings warm water north from the Caribbean to the UK and north west Europe.

Global Warming will cause the Greenland ice cap to melt which, when combined with increased rainfall at high latitudes, will potentially disrupt the THC by adding freshwater and decreasing sea water salinity in the North Atlantic.

The experts
Dr Geoff Jenkins, senior climate researcher at the Hadley Centre, said that the film does have a basis in theory. "If the Gulf Stream did shut down, the UK and northwest Europe would become colder, but over a much longer timescale - the film makers have crammed what would happen in a decade into a few hours".

You are correct in that desalinisation plants produce fresh water. With that fresh water, people won't need to take as much water from out of the ground, thereby slowing down salinity at the very least. While it is a short-term solution, it gives Australia some breathing space to better deal with salinity.

You are correct in that desalinisation plants produce fresh water. With that fresh water, people won't need to take as much water from out of the ground, thereby slowing down salinity at the very least. While it is a short-term solution, it gives Australia some breathing space to better deal with salinity.

Desalination is very much a long term solution to Australia's water crisis, especially since the population is going to soar (the middle east and california are investing heavily in this technology). And we also need to invest in more sustainable farming practices. Though Aussie farmers are good, when irrigating, there must be planting of trees otherwise salinity does become a problem.

Like all science fiction, it extracts and magnifies a few fragments of scientific truth. The upper northern hemisphere remains habitable partly because of the global circulation of ocean currents, which drags warm water up from the tropics. The currents start in the North Atlantic when the dense, salty surface waters sink to the ocean floor and begin to roll southward. Between Greenland and the Faroe Islands there is an undersea waterfall 30 times the size of the River Amazon.

About 8,200 years ago, as the last main glacial period was coming to an end, and the great global thaw had permitted humans to move back into northern Europe, an ice dam in north-eastern Canada burst. Behind it was a vast body of meltwater, which roared through the Hudson Strait and into the North Atlantic. The story of what happened next is now a matter of dispute, but some researchers suggest the result was a 200-year ice age, during which humans once more were driven out of northern Europe. The Day After Tomorrow starts with the premise that it could be about to happen again.

In fact, it now seems that there simply isn't enough freshwater to shut down the circulation system, and no means, such as the bursting of the great Canadian ice dam, by which it could enter the ocean quickly enough to cause a dramatic effect.

It's a MOVIE! If you want facts go watch a documentary. :roll:

I've never seen the movie, but I think that yes, global warming is a concern. We need to do some more stuff for the environment.
Yes we do!!! Although alot is going on to stop Global Warming we still need more. Like the way we Americans emit to much C02 into the atmosphere!

Well if this is all about salt water versus fresh water...

Let's just throw all the obese people into the ocean! I am sure there is enough salt inside their tubby bellies from eating all them french fries to restore the Atlantic to equilibrium.

In 1993, CBS aired a miniseries of preposterous exaggeration about global warming, The Fire Next Time. A smart writer--okay, me--wrote of the show:

The CBS miniseries depicted a man and boy attempting to travel the Mississippi River in an ecologically ruined United States of the year 2007, a world of searing warmth, sustained droughts, hyper-storms and dangerous exposure to bad dialogue. Conservative critics were aghast, saying the film indoctrinated audiences with greenhouse scenarios far worse than any projected by the most pessimistic computer model. My reaction was the opposite. By trivializing the greenhouse effect into a subject as ludicrous as the premise of a television miniseries, The Fire Next Time served mainly to convince audiences the prospect of global warming is just another Hollywood gimmick, which unfortunately it may not be.

Preposterous Hollywood mistreatment of global-warming science is about to return in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, a big-budget disaster flick that premieres Memorial Day weekend. Directed by the guy who did the big-budget sci-fi disaster flick Independence Day, the new film--you can watch the trailer here--is being promoted as based on science. Will this have the backfire effect of making the real and troubling science of artificial global warming seem like science fiction?

In The Day After Tomorrow, climate change caused by artificial greenhouse-gas accumulation initiates a preposterous instant planet-wide calamity. Enormous mega-tornadoes larger than any ever actually observed in nature appear from nowhere to level the city of Los Angeles. Hail larger than any ever actually observed in nature smashes Tokyo to ruins. The Antarctic ice sheets melt essentially instantaneously, creating a global tsunami that floods the world's coastal cities. Then, just three days after the instantaneous melting of the ice caps, an instantaneous ice age hits northern latitudes, freezing the seawater that flooded coastal cities and leaving Manhattan under an instant glacier.

In a moment we'll return to the imbecile-caliber "science" of The Day After Tomorrow and to my fear that, by presenting global warming in a laughably unrealistic way, the movie will only succeed in making audiences think that climate change is a big joke, when in fact the real-science case for greenhouse-gas reform gets stronger all the time. Let's first pause to note that Al Gore and MoveOn.org appear to be planning a promotional event in conjunction with the movie's release. Once Gore was a serious thinker on environmental issues, and diligently sought out top-notch scientific advice; say what you will about his 1992 Earth in the Balance--it's an earnest, conscientious work by someone concerned with getting the details straight. Now Gore appears ready to affiliate his reputation with a cheapo third-rate disaster movie that makes Fantastic Voyage seem like a peer-reviewed technical paper. It's easy to see why MoveOn.org wants the reflection of the new movie's limelight; wild exaggeration is a good fundraising tool. But if Gore associates himself with this mindless flick, he will have completed his descent from serious thinker and national leader to MoveOn.org's sock puppet. Why would Al Gore do this to himself?

Back to the science. Could Antarctic ice melt overnight? Studies suggest that past melting cycles of large ice sheets required millennia. So far global temperatures have increased one degree Fahrenheit in the last century--a reason to take greenhouse effect theory seriously, but nothing remotely close to what might be required for a historically unprecedented super-fast melting. In the last decade, the surface of the enormous Larsen ice shelf lost about one foot to melting, another reason to take greenhouse theory seriously, but an amount that liquefied a minute fraction of the ice shelf's mass. Even if global air temperatures somehow shot up by dozens of degrees Fahrenheit, which no global-warming scenario predicts--the worst-case warming forecast is about 10 degrees, plenty bad enough on its own--ice caps would require at least years to liquefy. Meanwhile the meltwater tidal wave that hits New York City is depicted as hundreds of feet high. A 2002 National Academy of Sciences study of possible "abrupt" climate change estimated that complete melting of austral ice would raise sea levels from 16 feet to 30 feet, not hundreds of feet. Sixteen feet would be plenty bad enough.

However paradoxical it may sound, there is a chance global warming could lead to lower temperatures in parts of the world, mainly Europe. Bear in mind that most of Europe lies to the north of Maine, yet is more temperate owing to prevailing ocean currents that carry warm equatorial water north toward the Old World nations. If prevailing ocean currents changed, temperatures in Europe might decline even as the world overall grew warmer; this is a genuine concern. That recent science suggests Europe might be hardest-hit in the short term by climate change is a reason European Union governments pressed hard for the Kyoto greenhouse-gas treaty while the Clinton administration refused to submit the agreement to the Senate and the George W. Bush administration abrogated it entirely.

But though cooling of the European climate is a troubling possible impact of artificial global warming, such change would almost certainly be gradual. Wallace Broecker of Columbia University, the world's preeminent authority on ocean currents, who first proposed that the dagger of abrupt climate change would be pointed at Europe, recently noted "there is no reason to believe that the impacts could occur in a mere decade ... the time required for this to happen is more likely a century." Atlantic Ocean currents, Broecker's research has found, changed dramatically about 12,700 years ago and again about 8,200 years ago, probably because large amounts of fresh water melting from the retreating Canadian ice sheet altered salinity patterns in the seas. Broecker fears something similar could be caused by artificial global warming, and thus supports greenhouse-gas restrictions--but adds that "exaggerated scenarios serve only to intensify the existing polarization" on greenhouse reform. The real science is plenty worrisome enough.

Next, while artificial global warming might cause cooler climates in some northern latitudes, there appears little chance global warming would trigger an ice age. Regrettably, the notion that global warming might provoke snap global glaciation may trace to this 1998 article in The Atlantic Monthly. The piece declared that disruption of ocean currents may usher in an ultra-fast ice age, causing "a catastrophe that could threaten the survival of civilization." Written by a man identified as "a theoretical neurophysiologist at the University of Washington at Seattle," the Atlantic's cover story essentially took the worst-case analyses of ocean-circulation outcomes, multiplied them together, discounted natural forces that resist climate flip-flops, and arrived at the warning that ice-age climate might resume "within a decade." Previous ice ages are believed to have taken from centuries to millennia to form large ice sheets. Atlantic Monthly articles are almost always of exceptionally high quality. But, well, nobody's perfect. Did producers of The Day After Tomorrow draw their conclusions about climate science from the writing of a theoretical neurophysiologist?

This recent paper in Science, the world's leading technical publication, summarizes what science knows about the Atlantic Meridian Overturning--a fancy name for the currents that carry warm water northward--and concludes that "in light of the paleoclimate record and our understanding of the contemporary climate system, it is safe to say that global warming will not lead to the onset of a new ice age." Europe might be harmed by the ocean-current consequences of artificial global warming, the researchers also speculate. This recent paper in Science presents the evidence that an aspect of ocean circulation called the subpolar gyre began to weaken in the 1990s, perhaps owing to the gradual warming that is indisputably in progress. These kinds of findings are legitimate science, and where the legitimate worries lie.

The Day After Tomorrow veers into total science illiteracy in its depiction of the instant freezing of New York City. Seawater sloshing over Manhattan solidifies in little more than moments, leaving the island's skyscrapers encased in hundreds of feet of ice; people and vehicles are blast-frozen into place. This is beyond laughable. Suppose all transit of warm weather northward via ocean currents ceased, a much worse outcome than any global warming model projects: Even if this happened, air temperatures in New York City would take perhaps months to decline, and the decline would be incremental. Blast-freezing city-sized volumes of seawater--assuming this is physically possible at all--might require air temperatures of absolute zero or something close to it. The lowest temperature ever recorded on Earth, minus 129 degrees Fahrenheit, happened in Antarctica, which is colder than the Arctic. Even air at minus 129 degrees might be insufficient to blast-freeze a tsunami the size of Manhattan, especially bearing in mind that the liquid in question is freeze-resistant seawater. And even if there were some strange wind that blew frigid air from the South Pole all the way to Manhattan, such air would have to cross the equator, warming in the process. In The Day After Tomorrow, Manhattan is suddenly hit by gusting winds at hundreds of degrees below zero--where does this super-cold air come from? (There is very cold air high in the Arctic atmosphere, but no global-warming models envision creation of a new natural mechanism that pushes such air downward in large masses to ground level, while redirecting it thousands of miles.) If the northward flow of warm equatorial water stopped, this would not create northern super-cold, but rather gradually declining boreal temperatures.

Readers interested in the serious science of global warming and the serious case for greenhouse reform might consult the work of the Energy Future Coalition, a bipartisan organization--its big names include Democrat Timothy Wirth, Republican C. Boyden Gray, and the energy expert Robert Fri--that advocates transition to greenhouse-friendly energy production. Its practical, not pie-in-the-sky, "hurry the future" policy recommendations for greenhouse gas reduction are here.

When The Day After Tomorrow crash-lands in theaters, some commentators are sure to say that the Bush administration will dread the movie because it will raise global-warming consciousness. To paraphrase myself from a decade ago, my reaction is the opposite. By trivializing the greenhouse effect into a subject as ludicrous as the premise of a scientifically illiterate disaster movie, The Day After Tomorrow may serve mainly to convince audiences the prospect of global warming is just another Hollywood gimmick. Unfortunately, it may not be. The real science behind the need for greenhouse gas reform is plenty troubling without preposterous exaggeration.

Gregg Easterbrook is a senior editor at TNR.

Well if this is all about salt water versus fresh water...

Let's just throw all the obese people into the ocean! I am sure there is enough salt inside their tubby bellies from eating all them french fries to restore the Atlantic to equilibrium.
You can't freeze salt water.

Well if this is all about salt water versus fresh water...

Let's just throw all the obese people into the ocean! I am sure there is enough salt inside their tubby bellies from eating all them french fries to restore the Atlantic to equilibrium.
You can't freeze salt water.

Have you any idea how much salt Americans, Brits and Australians consume? Believe me, our bodies are oozing with salty goodness to save planet Earth...

uh...well...not me personally :roll:

Someone has to take credit for this initiative :wink:

Well if this is all about salt water versus fresh water...

Let's just throw all the obese people into the ocean! I am sure there is enough salt inside their tubby bellies from eating all them french fries to restore the Atlantic to equilibrium.
You can't freeze salt water.

at a temperature of -18C i think. or maybe lower.

Well if this is all about salt water versus fresh water...

Let's just throw all the obese people into the ocean! I am sure there is enough salt inside their tubby bellies from eating all them french fries to restore the Atlantic to equilibrium.
You can't freeze salt water.

at a temperature of -18C i think. or maybe lower.
All the science reports I read that were written by the experts say that you have to have temperatures minus hundreds of degrees for salt water to freeze. Most likely thousands of degrees.
If you read the articles I posted above you will read that a temp. of -18C is not going to be cold enough to freeze salt water.

Maybe if had it as cold as it would be say on Europa or on Pluto, then Salt Water would freeze.

Well if this is all about salt water versus fresh water...

Let's just throw all the obese people into the ocean! I am sure there is enough salt inside their tubby bellies from eating all them french fries to restore the Atlantic to equilibrium.
You can't freeze salt water.

at a temperature of -18C i think. or maybe lower.
All the science reports I read that were written by the experts say that you have to have temperatures minus hundreds of degrees for salt water to freeze. Most likely thousands of degrees.
If you read the articles I posted above you will read that a temp. of -18C is not going to be cold enough to freeze salt water.
oh really? wow....

so what's the point you're trying to make?

Don't agree with me? Look up that Danish environmentalist (I keep forgeting his name).
Heh, I'm not much of an environmentalist, but I will say that Bjorn Lomborg has even less credibility than most. A lot of what he says is trite, uninformed nonsense, and I'm not even talking about the environmental stuff, I mean the background science and politics generally. The guy knows how to sell a book, but I wouldn't trust his assertions one bit.
Bjorn Lomborg is a breath of fresh air to the environmental movement, long dominated by eco-marxists. His assertions are less anti-civilizational than most, and they are far more practical. Saying that humans should adapt to global warming, for example, is a far better assertion than sacrificing the economy for the environment.
But of course, you shouldn't care. The industrialized world as we know it will end in a few years, right?

Well if this is all about salt water versus fresh water...

Let's just throw all the obese people into the ocean! I am sure there is enough salt inside their tubby bellies from eating all them french fries to restore the Atlantic to equilibrium.
You can't freeze salt water.

at a temperature of -18C i think. or maybe lower.
All the science reports I read that were written by the experts say that you have to have temperatures minus hundreds of degrees for salt water to freeze. Most likely thousands of degrees.
If you read the articles I posted above you will read that a temp. of -18C is not going to be cold enough to freeze salt water.

i think y'all must mean "freeze the ocean solid". having grown up on the coast of maine, i saw salt water frozen every winter; my dad saw the whole bay frozen over solid enough to walk on for a distance.

Indeed, what are the ice-caps made out of if not frozen saltwater? And if the ice caps are freshwater, how were they desalinated prior to freezing? :?