The Day After Tomorrow

I didn’t read his piece as so much a criticism of the movie, but rather a knock against those who would take an interesting and exciting (presumably) film too seriously. After all, it is just a movie.

Hmm, and here I thought it was Gore who tried to take the movie too seriously by using it as a direct springboard to play scare games with environment.

And get mad at The Siege for showing Americans detaining innocent men with foreign-sounding names in the name of fighting terrorism. . .

Oh, wait. Never mind.

Be outraged at The Pricess Bride for its whitewashing of the reality of aristocratic forms of government!

The villian of The Princess Bride was the aristocratic Prince who planned to murder his new wife and frame a foriegn government as a pretext for an invasion.

But I do not dispute you. Sadly, I believe it STILL whitewashes the reality of aristocratic forms of government.

“We were totally lied to by our heavy metal album covers.”

Bill (or possibly Ted) on seeing Hell for the first time (from “Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey”).

Or we could gnash our teeth about creationists popping off about anything involving long words.

if The Princess Bride isn’t real then why do we have Operation Inigo Montoya?

I’m guessing from the consensus here that anyone who DOES point to the movie as an endorsement of Kyoto and/or indictment of Bush’s policies will be roundly condemned as a fantacist, right? Yeah, well I’m sure we’ll get the chance to see. On those who dismiss Reynolds as a geek, an outcast, a rube… whatever, why the hell are you typing?

“I didn’t read his piece as so much a criticism of the movie, but rather a knock against those…”

I’m with Mike G. in suspecting Kieran of missing the instapoint.

The Day After Tomorrow has been earnestly marketed by its makers and publicized by its ecofans on the basis that it’s portraying ominous truth, rather than peddling mere fiction. The absurdity began there:

Director Roland Emmerich: “The film is a nightmare story not about what could happen but what will happen if global warming worsens and world leaders look the other way, Emmerich says: ‘A catastrophe where nature is going wild has a totally different feel to it. I read a couple of books, and I said to myself, this could happen. You have to make it as entertaining as possible, but you still want to raise a warning flag.'” (http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-01-15-day-after_x.htm)

Star Jake Gyllenhaal: “This film has made me much more aware of how dire it is now, because something like this could happen. When a science fiction director like Roland Emmerich decides to find science fiction in reality, something’s wrong. It’s a little scary.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2004/05/12/jake_gyllenhaal_day_after_tomorrow_interview.shtml)

Guardian Headline: Never mind the weather overkill: scientists praise Hollywood’s global warning “…yesterday The Day After Tomorrow won praise from both the British research establishment and the environment movement. Among the film’s unexpected fans after a sneak preview are the government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, and Geoff Jenkins, head of the Hadley Centre for Climate Change, who both regard the film’s stunning special effects as good fun and welcome the blockbuster as raising public awareness and debate about a vital issue. Sir David, who recently stirred political debate on both sides of the Atlantic by saying that global warming was a greater threat than terrorism, said the beginning of the film was particularly realistic–both scientifically and politically.” ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1215386,00.html)

The tendency to shamelessly exploit environmental worries to scare up support for (even laudable) policy changes is a trademark of the environmental movement:

“Environmental charities are exaggerating the threat of climate change in an attempt to raise more money from public donations, according to a report by Oxford University academics.” (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/02/ngreen02.xml)

Environmentalist Stephen H. Schneider, Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, has been disarmingly open about his own tendency toward scare-mongering: “…we need to get some broadbased 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.” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider)

Taken in this context, Kieran’s lighthearted criticism of the critics of such relentless scaremongering seems misplaced.

It’s the environmental movement itself that’s harmed by such disreputable tactics, after all.

“Kieran’s lighthearted criticism of the critics of such relentless scaremongering seems misplaced.”

Orson Welles, to Gitmo you go.

Tom’s comment may actually be THE STUPIDEST THING I HAVE EVER READ IN ANY BLOG COMMENTS SECTION, EVER.

Let’s recap, for all the other bozos here:

1. Kieran says it’s stupid that people are criticizing The Day After Tomorrow for scientific scaremongering. Essentially, the crux of his argument is that it’s just a damn movie, stop taking it seriously.

2. Dan writes in with a comment that pretty much destroys what Kieran wrote. He points out several well-researched quotes that show the people behind the movie *do indeed* take its environmental message quite seriously, thus inviting equally serious criticism.

2. One of these quotes is by Stephen Schneider, who states in quite plain English that yes, this is scaremongering, but essentially defends it as “lying for a good cause.” Quote: “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

3. Hilariously, Tom is so damned determined to believe that Schneider (and, implicitly, all the other folks Dan quoted) must *not* be scaremongering that he says no, Schneider is not scaremongering at all. No, instead he’s [giggle] “admitting the difficulty in transmitting complex scientific information through the media.”

Seriously, I cannot type this without snickering. Tom, turn off your computer. Go outside. Get some fresh air. Breathe deeply.

Alaska Jack

Alaska Jack

You’ve renewed my faith in Crooked Timber humanity. Thanks for that.

I’ve blogged on the Schneider misquote at great (excessive) length (see here and here, and taken the trouble to go back to the original source, rather than relying on blogosophere reproduction.

It’s clear, contrary to Dan, that Schneider was not advocating lying to promote the cause, but was rather expressing concern about the media demand for simplified stories.

Virtually everyone who has used this quote against Schneider has illustrated Schneider’s point for him, by shortening the quote to leave out qualifications which in their judgement, don’t change the meaning. (A substantial minority, beginning with Julian Simon have gone further, inserting bogus sentences that explicitly advocate lying). Dan’s use of a shortened the quote is typical of this tradition.

Could it really happen?

· The British royal family freezes to death in Balmoral
Unlikely, but the castle is notoriously underheated

Gee – scaremonering based on incomplete and massaged data?

Sounds like the pitch session for another flick, currently doing boffo business in Central Asia -‘Mesopotamia Now’.

And coming soon, the Director’s Cut(and run).

Sir David King who, when pressed for a comment, noted the realism of a section of the movie.
When pressed for a comment about this sentence, I just noted that both punctuation and spelling are excellent.

But I did get the girl. And she does look like that.

Alaska Jack-
I did what you suggested. Took a deep breath and went outside. Truth to tell I’ve been doing it for a long time. Outside is way different than it used to be. You idiotic pompous blowhard.
Spring now comes days earlier in England. Flowers bloom sooner, trees bud earlier, birds move in different patterns than they did. And die from it.
Traditional hunters in the circumpolar region (the Arctic) have been reporting anomalous freeze/thaw patterns for over a decade. While fat-ass chumps with 7-figure incomes shoot wolves from helicopters in Alaska.
The problem isn’t the science, the problem is that the oil/auto cartels are by far the largest most powerful corporate entities on the planet, and they’ve been smothering the news. Because they did this.
Plus the scientists who are coming back with accurate research are human, as a poster said, and this is grief-causing news. It causes tremendous grief. It’s bewildering in its tragic grandeur.
So windbags like yourself can dominate conversations, because the other side is mostly numb with shock.
I’ll bet you like arguing with teenagers too, don’t you? And just ripping their idealistic nonsense all to shreds. Makes you feel like a man doesn’t it?
Ultimately there’s nothing to your position but well-fed cowardice, like all the other smug morons who spew this crap, swaggering pussies with a backup of hired thugs, craven media, and police-state technology.

I’d wear a short skirt, if it’d attract a gal. I’m not proud :-P

I am reminded of an old Environmental Policy class I took where the professor was warning against looking at studies that show that large doses of radiation is short durations lead to damaging health effects and extrapolating to real world situations where there will be exposure to much smaller doses of radiation for longer periods of time.

“Because we all know what happens when you are exposed to massive doses of radiation,” he said.

The whole class answered at once, “Yeah. You turn into a Superhero.”

Dan wrote:
“Schneider’s curious intentions aside, I assume most of us can agree that at least some environmental activists tend to exaggerate environmental dangers (for whatever reason), just as some environmental skeptics tend to downplay those dangers (for their own reasons).”

This is noncontroversial. I wouldn’t use PIRG’s information to wipe my bum with, for instance. I think the “second wave” of environmental movements in the 1970s & 1980s were inspired by truly acute environmental diasters – DDT, PCBs, Bhopal, Exxon Valdez, rivers catching fire. This, I think, means that there’s a need for a “crisis” rooted in their origins.

Likewise the Global Climate Coalition is breathtaking in its mendacity.

“As for selective quoting: quoting is, er, selective.”

So don’t castigate Schneider for acknowledging that the media will butcher the complex science in the desire to get a sexy story, when you in turn butcher a quote to make a sexier blog argument. That log in your eye must be painful; you should see an opthamologist).

Detached observer wrote:
“A plain reading of the Schneider quote — in the original version that you cite — seems to suggest to me — and I think most observers — although this is really for those reading this debate to say — that lying for the cause of the environment is right.”

I see. That’s why he wrote:

“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 – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.”

and:
“Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

Detached observer continues:
“Schneider after all, counsels scientists to hide any doubts they have about the veracity of the theories and present them as absolute, true statements.”

That’s not how he concludes.

Quothe Lance:

======
” … windbags like yourself can dominate conversations, because the other side is mostly numb with shock. I’ll bet you like arguing with teenagers too, don’t you? And just ripping their idealistic nonsense all to shreds. Makes you feel like a man doesn’t it? Ultimately there’s nothing to your position but well-fed cowardice, like all the other smug morons who spew this crap, swaggering pussies with a backup of hired thugs, craven media, and police-state technology.”
======

Well played, Sir! I find myself unable to match your keen insight, steel-trap logic, or rapier-like wit. Now pardon me, for I must slink back to my underground lair, lick my wounds and ponder the error of my ways.

– Alaska Jack

Alaska Jack-
I favor the sting of wit and poetic logic over insult and calumny, always. I hesitated before posting what even then seemed scurrilous and inelegant. But I meant it, and I mean it.
I’m sick and very tired, beyond bearing or caring, of these grinning fools who sneer at what, even if it’s mistaken, even if all the evidence mounting daily is fabricated and the world is yet spinning merrily along all edenlike and innocent, is still heartfelt concern that we have destroyed the only home we have.
I’m outraged that this is humorous to anyone. And it makes me violent.
–
Just in case you decide to rebut the argument itself, let me restate it.
The world is heating up. This is being caused by the burning of petroleum distillates in automobiles. The two industries involved, auto and oil, are more powerful than any government or military on the planet. The men who ride these industries owe their fortunes and their power to the same processes that are destroying us. They have covered up the evidence for as long as they were able. They still essentially own the public consciousness of the American public.
The reduction of concerned scientists and laymen, from the beginning, to “environmentalists” and other derogatory names, is at best collaboration and more often willing co-operation.
The public is child-like in its undevelopment; ridiculing people who try to speak sincerely to that child-like consciousness is disgusting. Demanding that at one and the same time scientific proof be impeccably presented and accessible to the unscientific layman is absurd, and obviously obstructionist.
The real dynamic here is deeply profane.

“Demanding that at one and the same time scientific proof be impeccably presented and accessible to the unscientific layman is absurd, and obviously obstructionist.”
Ha ha ha. On the “science” of global warming, check, http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/GW-Aliens-Crichton.html
Or don’t. Frankly, I’m with Alaska Jack, you idiots are beyond all aid. What a farce.

“On the “science” of global warming, check, http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/GW-Aliens-Crichton.html”

Why? Crichton’s an MD, not a climatologist. His opinion on the science behind global warming only slightly more worthy than A. Randomcitizen walking down the street, or some random celebrity. Why do you even *think* this is a scientific article?

Try Jones & Mann’s recent article on Paleoclimate over the past 2,000 years instead, from Reviews of Geophysics: ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/JonesMannROG04.pdf