Global Warming: The Movie
By Steven Milloy via Nadia | 29.03.2004 17:25 | Analysis | Ecology | World
"the movie’s unmistakable purpose is to scare us into submitting to the Greens’ agenda: domination of society through control of energy resources."
Global Warming: The Movie
Friday, March 26, 2004
By Steven Milloy
Coming to a multiplex near you on May 28 is the global warming disaster movie, “The Day After Tomorrow.” (search) I’ve only seen the trailer, but my money is on the movie, not global warming, being the disaster.
Featuring sensational but implausible weather phenomena ― such as tornadoes ripping through Los Angeles, a blizzard in New Delhi, grapefruit-sized hail pounding Tokyo and a single day sweltering-to-freezing temperature change in New York City ― the movie’s unmistakable purpose is to scare us into submitting to the Greens’ agenda: domination of society through control of energy resources.
This column has addressed Green extremism and global warming many times in the past ― "Eco-Imperialism's Deadly Consequences" ; "Global Warming not a WMD"; and "Global Warmers Admit No Solutions," for example. So suffice it to say that there’s no credible evidence humans are altering global climate in any measurable way and, to the extent that global climate is changing ― as it always has and always will ― there’s nothing that humans can do about that change except to adapt.
The oldest movie marketing strategy in the world is to tie in to some swirl of controversy ― it sells tickets. These filmmakers go one step further by pointing an accusing finger at each one of us with their plea to go “carbon-neutral.”
The film’s producers say they discovered that they were actually contributing to global warming by making the movie. To compensate for putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, they decided to go carbon-neutral ― a mix of energy conservation and tree planting, they claim, helped make up for their eco-error.
“It’s a small part of a very big problem, but it’s a start,” the producers reasoned. For what the rest of us can do, we’re directed to a Web site called futureforests.com, where you’ll learn that you (unfortunately) produce carbon dioxide, “well, just by living.”
Futureforests.com says you need to “make a commitment to reduce your emissions and have that published” and “buy products, which will compensate for every ton of carbon dioxide you produce, or buy gifts which neutralize a friend's emissions.”
Futureforests.com also features a celebrity section where you can learn about what celebrities are doing to go carbon-neutral. The rock band Foo Fighters (search), for example, is also planting trees as their personal contribution to fighting global warming.
“We measured the amount of carbon dioxide” created by the production, manufacture and distribution of [the band’s latest album] and [we are] planting enough trees in the Tensas River forest and wildlife reserve in Louisiana, to re-absorb that carbon dioxide over their lifetime,” said the band.
But if global warming were a real problem and planting trees were the answer, forest products giant Weyerhaeuser (search) would seem to have already solved a good part of the problem with the 130 million trees it plants every year.
The filmmakers’ nauseating elitism, ignorance and politics are displayed on the Web site, which features personal responses of the filmmakers to dopey questions such as “One last day, where on Earth would you spend it?”
Director Roland Emmerich (search) said he's spend his in “my house in Puerto Vallarta.” Editor David Brenner said, “On Kauai … as soon as they get a Starbucks.” VFX supervisor Karen Goulekas said, “Having a party on the beach in front of my house in Marina Del Ray.” Actor Jake Gyllenhall (search) said “On Martha’s Vineyard, with all my friends.”
“Your message to the world, given a billboard for one final day, what would you put or say on it?,” is another deep question asked of the filmmakers. Writer Jeffrey Nachmanoff said, “Out of 20 million species, why is there always one who has to go out and ruin it for the others?” Emmerich said “No more Bush.”
Many of the cast and crew have yet to respond on the Web site to these and other penetrating inquiries ― I can hardly wait to learn more about why we should take global warming seriously. So far, global warming appears to be just an excuse for Hollywood hedonism, human-bashing and electing John Kerry.
The movie’s undeniable political overtones verge on the irresponsible, especially in an election year. Aside from the director’s acknowledged anti-Bush sentiment, the actor who plays the evil U.S. vice president has more than a coincidental physical resemblance to Vice President Dick Cheney.
The film is not rated yet, but perhaps the Motion Picture Association of America will consider a new rating for The Day After Tomorrow ― a zero.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115203,00.html
Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of Junk Science
Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).
Friday, March 26, 2004
By Steven Milloy
Coming to a multiplex near you on May 28 is the global warming disaster movie, “The Day After Tomorrow.” (search) I’ve only seen the trailer, but my money is on the movie, not global warming, being the disaster.
Featuring sensational but implausible weather phenomena ― such as tornadoes ripping through Los Angeles, a blizzard in New Delhi, grapefruit-sized hail pounding Tokyo and a single day sweltering-to-freezing temperature change in New York City ― the movie’s unmistakable purpose is to scare us into submitting to the Greens’ agenda: domination of society through control of energy resources.
This column has addressed Green extremism and global warming many times in the past ― "Eco-Imperialism's Deadly Consequences" ; "Global Warming not a WMD"; and "Global Warmers Admit No Solutions," for example. So suffice it to say that there’s no credible evidence humans are altering global climate in any measurable way and, to the extent that global climate is changing ― as it always has and always will ― there’s nothing that humans can do about that change except to adapt.
The oldest movie marketing strategy in the world is to tie in to some swirl of controversy ― it sells tickets. These filmmakers go one step further by pointing an accusing finger at each one of us with their plea to go “carbon-neutral.”
The film’s producers say they discovered that they were actually contributing to global warming by making the movie. To compensate for putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, they decided to go carbon-neutral ― a mix of energy conservation and tree planting, they claim, helped make up for their eco-error.
“It’s a small part of a very big problem, but it’s a start,” the producers reasoned. For what the rest of us can do, we’re directed to a Web site called futureforests.com, where you’ll learn that you (unfortunately) produce carbon dioxide, “well, just by living.”
Futureforests.com says you need to “make a commitment to reduce your emissions and have that published” and “buy products, which will compensate for every ton of carbon dioxide you produce, or buy gifts which neutralize a friend's emissions.”
Futureforests.com also features a celebrity section where you can learn about what celebrities are doing to go carbon-neutral. The rock band Foo Fighters (search), for example, is also planting trees as their personal contribution to fighting global warming.
“We measured the amount of carbon dioxide” created by the production, manufacture and distribution of [the band’s latest album] and [we are] planting enough trees in the Tensas River forest and wildlife reserve in Louisiana, to re-absorb that carbon dioxide over their lifetime,” said the band.
But if global warming were a real problem and planting trees were the answer, forest products giant Weyerhaeuser (search) would seem to have already solved a good part of the problem with the 130 million trees it plants every year.
The filmmakers’ nauseating elitism, ignorance and politics are displayed on the Web site, which features personal responses of the filmmakers to dopey questions such as “One last day, where on Earth would you spend it?”
Director Roland Emmerich (search) said he's spend his in “my house in Puerto Vallarta.” Editor David Brenner said, “On Kauai … as soon as they get a Starbucks.” VFX supervisor Karen Goulekas said, “Having a party on the beach in front of my house in Marina Del Ray.” Actor Jake Gyllenhall (search) said “On Martha’s Vineyard, with all my friends.”
“Your message to the world, given a billboard for one final day, what would you put or say on it?,” is another deep question asked of the filmmakers. Writer Jeffrey Nachmanoff said, “Out of 20 million species, why is there always one who has to go out and ruin it for the others?” Emmerich said “No more Bush.”
Many of the cast and crew have yet to respond on the Web site to these and other penetrating inquiries ― I can hardly wait to learn more about why we should take global warming seriously. So far, global warming appears to be just an excuse for Hollywood hedonism, human-bashing and electing John Kerry.
The movie’s undeniable political overtones verge on the irresponsible, especially in an election year. Aside from the director’s acknowledged anti-Bush sentiment, the actor who plays the evil U.S. vice president has more than a coincidental physical resemblance to Vice President Dick Cheney.
The film is not rated yet, but perhaps the Motion Picture Association of America will consider a new rating for The Day After Tomorrow ― a zero.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115203,00.html Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of Junk Science
Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).
By Steven Milloy via Nadia
Comments
Display the following 6 comments