The Day After Tomorrow (Warning: Contains Plot Spoilers)

  1. Anybody seen this movie yet?

    I really don't see what all the initial fuss ("This Is the Movie the Bush Administration Doesn't Want You to See") was about. This was just one rip-snorter of a disaster movie, not a political statement........although the character of the Vice President could have been at least partially based on Dick Cheney, if only because he was so hard-nosed. Global warming was merely the catalyst for a lot of bizarre and entertaining weather phenomena which were impressive, if not very realistic (tornadoes taking out the Capitol Records building in LA?? The Statue of Liberty buried up to the chest in snow and ice?). And it was cool to see the father and son reunited against all odds, as well as the emergence of hundreds of survivors who, if this had been real, would have been buried under hundreds of feet of snow along with about 180 million other northern U.S. residents.

    All in all, it was a helluva ride, and I'm glad I got to see it on the big screen........but a commentary on environmental policy it wasn't, and if anyone in the Bush administration is truly worried about people changing their votes based on this movie, they're more paranoid than is healthy for anyone in a position of power!

    •  
  2. 10 Comments

  3. by   gwenith
    i think it is interesting to read the climate scientist's responses. basically they say they enjoyed it as entertainment but of course ridiculled the "physics". however the up part is that thier field has never had so much public attention and they feel that they are finally getting some of the real warnings through.

    the real reason that this film was unpopular with the bush administration is that it shines light on the fact that it was that admin that pulled out of signing the kyoto protocols.


    http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994888

    the world's no.1 science & technology news service scientists stirred to ridicule ice age claims

    19:00 15 april 04 newscientist.com news service climate scientists have been stirred to ridicule claims in an upcoming hollywood blockbuster that global warming could trigger a new ice age, a scenario also put forward in a controversial report to the us military.

    the $125-million epic, the day after tomorrow, opens worldwide in may. it will show manhattan frozen solid after the warm ocean current known as the gulf stream shuts down.

    the movie's release will come soon after a report to the us department of defense (dod) in february predicting that such a shutdown could put the northern hemisphere into a deep freeze and trigger global famine within 15 years.

    but in the journal science on thursday, andrew weaver of the university of victoria in british columbia, canada, surveys the current research and concludes "it is safe to say that global warming will not lead to the onset of a new ice age".


    salty water


    the dod's doomsday scenario, which is very similar to that in the film, was drawn up by peter schwartz and doug randall of the san francisco-based global business network. neither is a climate scientist.

    the scenario suggests that as global warming melts arctic ice packs, the north atlantic will become less salty. this would shut down a global ocean circulation system that is driven by dense, salty water falling to the bottom of the north atlantic and that ultimately produces the gulf stream.

    this much is respectable scientific theory, and some researchers believe it could happen for real in 100 years or so. but the film-makers and dod authors go further.

    they say it could happen very soon. and that if it did, the northern hemisphere would cool so much that that ice sheets would start to grow, creating a catastrophic new ice age.

    this is too much even for sympathetic climatologists. stefan rahmstorf of the potsdam institute for climate impact research in germany, whose own models say the gulf stream could shut down within a century, told new scientist: "the dod scenario is extreme and highly unlikely."


    achilles heel


    and wallace broecker of columbia university, new york, us, who has warned for two decades that the atlantic circulation is "the achilles heel of our climate system", seriously questions both the speed and severity of the changes proposed.

    subscribe to new scientist for more news and features
    related stories


    greenland ice cap 'doomed to meltdown'
    7 april 2004

    big chill killed off the neanderthals
    21 january 2004

    plankton may protect earth from icy fate
    31 october 2003

    for more related stories
    search the print edition archive

    weblinks


    climate modelling group, university of victoria
    geochemistry, ldeo, columbia university
    abrupt climate change report, global business network


    in a letter to science, he accuses the dod authors of making exaggerated claims that "only intensify the existing polarisation over global warming". he adds: "what is needed is not more words but rather a means to shut down co2 emissions." such action could avert any gulf stream shutdown in the next 100 years.

    schwartz defends his scenario, saying that while it is "not the most likely scenario, it is plausible, and would challenge us national security in ways that should be considered immediately".

    weaver notes that the movie's budget "would fund my entire research group for my entire life, 10 times over". that might even allow him to discover which scenarios are most plausible.

    but there are no sour grapes. "i will be one of the first to see the movie.," he says. "it'll be the towering inferno of climate - extremely entertaining." it will not confuse the public, he thinks, but it will not help them understand climate science either.

    fred pearce
  4. by   DCCCRN2Bn05
    I really enjoyed the movie. But as I always do I analyze everything from nurse mode. Like if it was cold enough to have that much snow and ice, how could they breath without something on thier faces? (Sorry i do that all the time I am a pain to watch ER with LOL) I believe the average young viewer like myself is more concerned with the action and adventure rather than some "underlying political message." All in all a great movie and I'd recommend it to anyone.
  5. by   dianah
    Is it OK for 13 yr-olds? Mine has seen Jurassic Park etc. From what I read, it should be OK (my two are really into special effects, not political messages, lol!), but I wanted a "second opinion." Thanks.
  6. by   VivaLasViejas
    Yep....I took my almost 13-year-old to see it. There's no nudity (too damn cold!), and I've heard more cussing on an episode of "NYPD Blue". Your boy should enjoy it.
  7. by   dianah
    Thanks Marla!
  8. by   VivaLasViejas
    No problem..... I'm always careful about what Ben watches, as he's prone to nightmares and has had some rather traumatic dream experiences after seeing something graphic (9/11 upset him terribly; he cried in his sleep for weeks after seeing the footage of people jumping to their deaths from the Twin Towers). He does like the special effects and computer wizardry, so I was comfortable with him seeing this movie. But like Ben always does, he had some serious questions afterwards; he wanted to know if this could happen, and if so, what could we do about it?

    I only wish our current administration cared enough to find some answers.....but that's a whole other thread that I'm NOT going to start.
  9. by   gwenith
    Lol!! If you think being in "nurse mode" is bad add that to "science geek mode" and you have a whole nest of problems - and yes! I am one of those people who will watch a film like "Star Wars" and cheerfully point out that space craft do not bank around a turn.


    I did enjoy the film but felt that they could with a little more imagination in the scriptwriting - kept the suspense with a more believable time frame.

    Marla - if your boy wants to learn more about climate change then this site whould not be too far away from a 13 year old

    http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic...te/climate.jsp

    This one is not so scientific and aimed at a more general audience

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/climatechange/
  10. by   VivaLasViejas
    Cool! Thanks Gwenith!
  11. by   gwenith
    I thought you would like the leading headline of that second site

    The Pentagon recently advised the US government that the biggest threat to America was climate change, not terrorism! With general consensus that the planet is getting hotter, the question has now become 'how hot, how soon, and with what consequences?' Lucy Andrew reports.
  12. by   VivaLasViejas
    And I'm sure the administration just jumped all over that one......

close