Exploring the Impact of Global Warming in 'The Day After Tomorrow' Film

  • Thread starter amp
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses a movie that exaggerates the effects of global warming and the possibility of extreme weather events occurring due to the chaotic nature of the weather system. The conversation also touches on the author of an article, Bjorn Lomborg, who presents a skeptical view of global warming and the backlash he receives for his opinions. The conversation highlights how Lomborg is often compared to Adolf Hitler and faced with personal attacks rather than engaging in a substantive debate. Despite this, the conversation acknowledges the seriousness of global warming and the need to address it.
  • #1
amp
This movie exaggerates the effects of Global Warming to be sure but with the weather being a chaotic system I don't think its at all improbable that some of the scenes depicted in the movie couldn't happen. Tornados may become more powerful or there could be a greater occurance of super (F4, F5) tornados, hurricanes could increase in strength as well.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #2
Most climatic models have regions of positive feedback if situations stray too far from "normal", but even these depend on years going by for the effects to be large.

Njorl
 
  • #3
It is a movie!
And that is it!
 
  • #4
They're wrong about Nietzsche in that movie. Very annoying. he wasn't in love with his sister, at least not incestually, and he was quite misogynistic, though not truly chauvinist given his despisal of sexuality. he was also a relativist who claimed that his views about women may very well have been only true for him, the only redeeming feature to that particular portion of his philosophies.
 
  • #5
Just to stir up the discussion, if at all possible:
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2004%2F05%2F09%2Fdo0903.xml [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
We may have recognised the author of that article, Bjorn Lomborg, the sceptical environmentalist who wrote in a book arguing that Kyoto is no good. It costs incredible amounts and the effect is neglible. Now if global warming was just science, then this would be a mere point of view, to be accepted or refuted.

I have been critiqued about exagarating about global warming hype. Is there a hype? Why be so aggressive against it?

This is partly why. Lomborg’s crime is only presenting a case and stating an opinion. What happens next is a witch hunt:

http://www.justmorons.com/articles/day040422.html

Danish scientist Bjorn Lomborg, who has recently been compared to Adolf Hitler by the Chairman of the U.N.'s Climate Panel

but:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/051104C.html

Adolf Lomborg
(…)
What Pachauri apparently objects to is that Lomborg concludes that the Kyoto Protocol would do almost nothing to reduce the rate of global warming, but at enormous expense. For a fraction of the costs of Kyoto, many pressing environmental problems afflicting poor countries could be addressed.

This is hardly Nazi thinking, but it is not the first time the Nazi analogy or something like it has been directed at Dr. Lomborg. The British scientific journal Nature, for instance, in November 2001 published a review of The Skeptical Environmentalist by Stuart Pimm of the Center for Environmental Research and Conservation, Columbia University, and Jeff Harvey of the Centre for Terrestrial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology. They said, "The text employs the strategy of those who, for example, argue that gay men aren't dying of AIDS, that Jews weren't singled out by the Nazis for extermination, and so on."


http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2001/09/10809.html

Anti-environmentalist author Bjorn Lomborg's book, the Skeptical Environmentalist, argues for continued exploitation of people and natural resources - and against attempts to control climate change, deforestation, waste etc. At a book launch in Oxford, Mark Lynas - who is writing a book on climate change issues - stuck a pie in his face - describing Lomborg's attitude as dangerous nonsense, feeding into the hands of the corporations like Esso.

http://wais.stanford.edu/Environment/environment_andbjornlomborg3502.html

You will remember that in a message a colleague of Bjorn Lomborg, a Professor of Statistics at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, denounced him as a disgrace to Denmark, and, worse still, a political scientist. not a statistician.

http://www.rense.com/general20/profitsAL.htm

Bjorn Lomborg - young, blond, piano-playing, but basically a statistics nerd - may not be back soon. He has just succeeded Monsanto as the official chief villain of the world environmental movement

http://bizarrescience.blogspot.com/2003_09_21_bizarrescience_archive.html [Broken]

Lomborg is a crook brought out by what every communard knows is a 'right-wing think tank'.

This is how it works:
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D3C6.htm

For example, rather than argue with Lomborg's figures on their own terms, Pimm and Harvey simply associated him with Holocaust-deniers, thereby branding his views as beyond the pale. And in the case of the Kosovo conflict, as playwright Harold Pinter pointed out, the UK government's claim that the Kosovo conflict was 'a replay of the Holocaust and Milosevic is Adolf Hitler', was effectively saying, 'We tell the truth. They lie'.

and this is why:

http://unfundedmandate.blogspot.com/2004/05/bjorn-lomborg-is-not-nazi.html [Broken]

Mr. Lomborg has been subjected to countless attacks on his character because the environmentalists opposing him don't have a substantive leg to stand on.

Global warming is no hype…. Err?

There should be a day that ad hominems turn against the attackers. Is it only in fairy tales that the little boys exclaiming: “look mummy, the emperor wears no clothes” are believed. In the real world, we shoot the messengers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. What is the premise of "The Day After Tomorrow" film?

The film follows a group of scientists and citizens as they try to survive a global catastrophic event caused by the rapid onset of a new ice age due to global warming. The main character, Jack Hall, must also rescue his son who is trapped in New York City during the storm.

2. Is the depiction of global warming in the film accurate?

The film exaggerates the speed and severity of global warming and its effects, such as the rapid melting of polar ice caps and the immediate onset of an ice age. However, the overall concept of global warming and its potential impacts on Earth's climate is based on scientific evidence.

3. What are some of the major themes explored in the film?

The film explores themes of climate change, the consequences of ignoring scientific warnings, and the resilience and adaptability of humanity in the face of disaster. It also raises questions about government and societal responsibility in addressing global issues.

4. How does the film portray the role of human activity in causing global warming?

The film suggests that human activity, specifically the burning of fossil fuels and emission of greenhouse gases, is a major contributor to global warming and its catastrophic effects. It also emphasizes the importance of taking action to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate the impacts of climate change.

5. What message does the film convey about the future of our planet?

The film serves as a cautionary tale about the potential consequences of not addressing climate change and the importance of taking action to protect our planet. It also highlights the need for global cooperation and individual responsibility in addressing this global issue.

Similar threads

  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • General Engineering
Replies
19
Views
10K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
133
Views
24K
Back
Top