Where can you get a good analog wolf nowadays? (And where do you check on the wolf to tell?)
Best wishes,
Jerry
The science wasn’t laughable; it was rather incomprehensible.
The artic icepack starts breaking up due to global warming
and this releases fresh water into the oceans which
changes the saline balance and, well, you better look out when
that happens! The movie doesn’t illustrate the real issues at hand,
certainly, but it doesn’t make them laughable. Indeed,
rather meek climatologists are increasingly more strident in
attempting to get the government to listen; it’s pretty
persuasive and well done. At one point Cheney dismisses
a very cautious climatologist’s advice, saying: ‘Why don’t you just
do the science and leave the policy to us?’
and the climatologist fires back: ‘We tried telling you the science, sir.
It didn’t get through.’
The agenda
is entertainment, not political, but it helps more than
hurts the enviromentalist cause.
Movie reviewers are usually vermin, by the way.
Here is the beginning of the review, guess the movie:
‘Beefy Bruce Willis, horribly miscast as a child psychologist
in this laughably silly movie…’
Willis horribly miscast as a child psychologist?
Hello, did they see The Sixth Sense?
Stuart
By the way, if anybody remembers, I was
one of the Playboy philosophers. Lived in Chicago
at the time.
Point taken.
All I know is that any time there is a chance for money to change hands (usually from me to “them”) they will find a way to promulgate some desparate situation to justify the movement.
But this is a capitalist society. Media outlets make money off their reporting, scientists make money from their research, academics make money from publishing books. If you distrust these people because they make money from their findings, then perhaps you just distrust capitalism.
In any case, all the money in the world doesn’t change what we actually observe in the upper atmosphere. We can cite scientists competing for grant money or agenda-laden politicians or the common stereotype of “ivory tower eggheads,” but data is data.
I have also been around science enough to know that the results can be (ANS ARE) made to be whatever is wanted just by changing the method of evaluation. This happens in EVERY field, incuding the medical industry.
Can you provide some examples? In my experience people can come to incorrect conclusions via bad methodology, but bad methodology is usually obvious and transparent. It is not as if you can whip up any conclusion by choosing between various methodologies—at least if you try, the community will call BS on you.
People whose own agendas are derailed by scientific discovery often try to characterize science as utterly subjective, allowing any conclusion to be drawn by cooking numbers the right way, but it just ain’t so. Since Galileo, despite various fads and fallacies, the smart money has been on the scientists rather than against them.
Caj
Another thing that bothers me about this movie is the fact that it makes evironmentalists (like myself) seem as if we want all of technology and civilization wiped out. It fails to put a more realistic event sequence in place to make the viewer feel like these disasters are readily possible. Tornados, Floods, Tidal Waves, and various disasters just don’t happen like that, and all sensible folks know this. This would lead the viewers to feel overly secure, because the things pollution ect. cause in nature are rarely readily visible by commoners.
These films which graphically portray the mass destruction of our familiar buildings, societies and cities (be it from aliens, asteroids, volcanoes or the weather)
Does anyone other than me find them somewhat - voyueristic?
Playboy has articles??? 
All the Best, Tom
I once went on a long road trip with two Marxists who
were outraged by Raiders of the Lost Ark, just released,
which they
saw as an endorsement of capitalist plundering of
third world cultures. ‘RAIDERS! RAIDERS of the Lost Ark!’
they kept saying. Somewhere in Kansas
it occurred to me they were taking the movie a
bit too seriously. I found myself liking Marxism less.
DAT is not dedicated to political transformation, nor
is it meant to be taken terribly seriously. It is rather
mass entertainment with an environmentalist attitude,
and while I appreciate it cannot measure up to the
effort that some might have wished, it is hard to see
it as a setback for environmentalism. To the contrary.
Sometimes you can change people’s minds without
being didactic. Sometimes it’s a good idea to
lighten up..Taking this film very seriously, lamenting what it
might have been, may be more dangerous to public
perceptions of
environmentalism than the movie.
Yes, yes, it’s voyeurism! Best
I think Jim Stone has a good point:
It’s a movie. Entertainment Not even a documentary, which claims at least an attempt to get things right.
Basing your beliefs on the validity (or lack of validity) of global warming on this movie makes no more sense than basing them on “Waterworld” or “Jaws”. It may be a great movie (or not - haven’t seen it yet) but treating any movie as an accurate reflection of reality is dangerous.
voyeur [vwī yúr] (plural voyeurs)
- persistent observer of misery or scandal: somebody who is fascinated with, or persistently observes, distressing, sordid, or scandalous topics or events
Microsoft® Encarta® Premium Suite 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
If you say so Jim!
Talk show host Glenn Beck has proposed that the movie be viewed “Rocky Horror Picture Show” style, with people, who having already seen it, come and act out the corniest parts, warn the guy who gets clipped by the billboard “Watch out for the Billboard!” etc. etc. I kinda liked Twister for that same thing. “Look out for the flying cow!” etc.
All it needs is an Al Gore endorsement at the beginning to make it a complete fraud. I watched its pre-emptive imitator, “10.5” on the tube recently.
You laugh now, but if the ozone layer gets
a teensy weensy bit thinner, heh, heh, heh!
Yeah, gee, Stoney, I know. A bit thinner and it will trigger a 12.7 earthquake, of which the magnetic shift will attract a killer asteroid that would have swerved by and then I’ll be sorry, especially after the explosion triggers 4 centuries of solar flares which in turn attract the Cardassians to come thru the wormhole and make us all their slaves! Damn right!
… well the ozone layer is already thin enough to cause plenty of skin cancer in the southern and northern hemisphere as well as plenty of problems in summer in Europe (at least) for kids and elderly people when it comes down to being able to be out during day time and get proper air/breathing supply. Not to speak about plants and animals being harmed by the UV-lights which comes through more and more unfiltered.
Brigitte