'Tomorrow' is HOT! $100 Million predicted - neo-cons freak.

'DAY AFTER TOMORROW' HOT AT THE BOX OFFICE

May 30, 2004 -- Moviegoers are flooding into theaters to catch the doomsday environmental flick "The Day After Tomorrow."

It racked up $25 million in ticket sales Friday and iced its nearest competition, "Shrek 2," and is forecast to make $100 million over the holiday weekend. The film depicts global warming gone wild - tornadoes in L.A., an ice age in India, and New York City flooded and frozen.

"Shrek 2" took $20.5 million its second Friday out.
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/24884.htm

The conservatives are in full frothing mouth mode. Whahooo! Let's see their heads explode as this movie rakes in the cash.

Next up, Michael Moore. Bwahahahahahahaha!

I went to see the movie yesterday and I enjoyed it. The best part was the audience. They became very quiet after about 20 minutes into the movie. The area was neither super conservative nor liberal, meaning, independant and swing voter!!

It is a science fiction. But it can happen, not ove a week, but over several decades!!

What I know a little about is 'mathematical models', especially 'catastrophe theory', 'butterfly effect' and 'dynamical system'. (I am, by training, a mathematician.) A typical dynamical system is a set of partial differential equation, which, in modern differential topology, we approach the problem to understand the nature of such system sometimes without solving directly. Ok, in short, we know, as a mathematical fact, solution can change drastically with a very small change in given condition, quite all of sudden.

This is why I say that the movie is reasonable extrapolation because it makes a sense mathematically.

Many systems in nature are quite stable up until certain point. However, once something goes beyond that threshold, quite extraordinary thing can happen.

It is a very serious fact that arctic ice are melting and breaking down at unprecedented pace.

On the top of that, now we know China factor, which many western scientist did not take it into consideration until now.

Hertopos

I assume he only means the rate at which Chinese fuel consumtpion is growing.

china's increased use of fossil fuels

I hate it when I mispell sumthing.

So it's spelled wrong...so what! I think like that because I'm a lousy speller and a little defensive. MDH is a good speller and would be the first to make a correction...but I take it as an opportunity to be critical and show me how much more intelligent he is than me. I don't like it...I think it's rude. :evilgrin:
Why can't it just be overlooked as a typo, being in a hurry or God forbid...they didn't know how to spell it. People who are not good spellers or writers shouldn't be afraid to post.

Sorry for the rant...but every time someone corrects someone...It make me crazy! :crazy: :mad: OK, I'm finished now! (I hope I didn't spell anything wrong or make too many grammatical errors and poor punctuation! If I did...please forgive me! I know not what I do.)

Oops...sorry...forgot to put the "'" in someone's. :)

NASA says it took only 3 months (THAT IS 90 solar days) for a single storm to completely cover Mars. So what makes anyone think it would take longer here on earth? And note that dust is not the issue. Read the rest of the article...


neo-cons gonna be excreting the sharp sided cement ones over the summer....

quote followed by link leading to longer article (part 2 of 3)

Though many would like to believe that a fast-acting “global superstorm” is science fiction, a powerful global dust storm engulfed the entire planet of Mars in only three months of 2001, as Figure 10 (below) clearly demonstrates. The official Hubble Space Telescope website described this event as the “biggest global dust storm seen on Mars in several decades,” with unusually energetic behavior, including a speed of travel across Mars’ equator that was “quite unheard of in previous experience”. The description “in several decades” implies that this is the biggest storm in at least 40 years, if not more. Especially interesting is a statement describing this as part of an “abrupt onset of global warming in Mars’ thin atmosphere,” the study of which a NASA scientist from Cornell described as “the opportunity of a lifetime.”<34>


link off this page:
http://www.halfpasthuman.com/HPHUE_HAZARDS.htm

it's a lot easier for a dust storm to go global without the moderating effects of the oceans...

Once Mars lost it's magnetic field, the oceans disappeared. Earth is also losing it's magnetic field, btw. Have a happy day! :D

so why should it matter?

at least it wouldn't be boring.

we're headed to the flicks this rainy afternoon, and we're headed for Shrek2...although we might stick around the multiplex and make it a double feature day by seeing "Day after" after Shrek...

Where you hear this? I'm not seeing it on the newswire. Here's another report:

Day After Tomorrow Takes Memorial Day BO Lead Source: ShowBIZ Data Saturday, May 29, 2004

20th Century Fox's The Day After Tomorrow took the early lead at the 4-day Memorial Day Weekend box office, earning an estimated $24.7 million from 3,425 theaters on Friday. The Roland Emmerich-directed disaster film carries a production budget of about $125 million.

DreamWorks increased the theater count for Shrek 2 to an unprecedented 4,223 theaters. The huge sequel blockbuster added another $21.5 million in its 10th day to bring the total to $186.1 million. The animated comedy was budgeted at $70 million.
http://comingsoon.net/news.php?id=4931

From your link:

Shrek 2 $73,100,000
The Day After Tomorrow $70,000,000

And Day After Tomorrow is doing this with only 3,425 theaters compared to Shrek 2 whick is in 4,223 theaters. Still, a lot of folks seeing a movie about Global warming, junk science or not.

As I understand it, the movie is bunk scientifically. If it gets de-bunked, it could set back environmentalism. "They lied to us in that movie, so why should be believe anything they say?" The movement against domestic violence is still trying to live down the falsehood that violence increased during the Superbowl.

... become the very model of B-movie evil for years to come.

Good to see the ol' Cassandra Complex working overtime.

... when I heard they cast a guy who looked like Cheney as the VP.

Dick Cheney. Old Man Potter from It's a Wonderful Life.

They're the same person.

the "science" of the movie has been totally de-bunked.

... instead of does it exist.

you'll be hearing stuff like "yeah, right- just like in the day after tomorrow, right...? hahahahahahaha..."

schlock entertainment doesn't fool or scare anyone, and only makes a mockery out of the real facts.

That's all you have to say. Or are you one of those who fact check a Star Trek episode?

and how it has neo-cons quaking in their boots...

but now it's just "a friggin movie"???

i don't know whether to :shrug: or :eyes:

... and from you. Thanks for the bump. :hi:

apparently, people realize which movie makes more sense.

(btw- isn't thanking me for the "bump" 18 hours after the fact really more about pleasuring yourself back to the first page? :shrug:)

prominent one backed by a number of scientists. It's only the hyperwarp speed at which the climate is shown as changing that is the science FICTION part. So quit spewing rightwing talking points.

Here's something I ran across earlier this evening:

http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/053004-the_day_after_tomorr.php#007321

I went to see "The Day After Tomorrow" on Friday. I could hardly pass up a movie that had been written up in the Guardian/UK as Never mind the weather overkill: scientists praise Hollywood's global warning (5/13/04). Which makes what I'm hearing now from "news" shows and NPR even more obscene. These reports must be written by Republican spin doctors who are following the marching orders to play down climate crisis. This is insane, when much of the scenario depicted in the movie follows the Pentagon's own scenarios on climate collapse.

In watching "The Day After Tomorrow" I felt a bit like someone who had sat in on one of my lectures had written the movie. Silly I know, but for example, Monday night I had just talked about global warming, melting Arctic, the ocean conveyors stopping, and plunging us into an ice age. I had just talked about wild weather and the drowning of coastal cities. I had even talked about the possible rapidity of such a change using the very example of the flash frozen mastadon. So as I watched, I knew that in many areas, the writers and producers of "The Day After Tomorrow" were drawing on an increasingly supported body of evidence.

So why all the negative play in the media? Maybe because the powers that be want to keep Americans questioning whether global warming, much less dramatic climate transformation is "real" or not? Most likely. Afterall, if we are contributing to the problem, and it is accepted that we are contributing to the problem, then there might be massive pressure to DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROBLEM. That would fly directly in the faces of those with vested interests to keep polluting and consuming, and those are very powerful "interests."

A question that has been raised is "Will this movie make people look at the weather differently?" I certainly hope so. Watching the weather reports drives me nuts because weather casters stay virtually silent on the macro level of weather. About as close as they come is to talk about el nino and la nina in the Pacific. What they leave out is that these ocean patterns have not historically changed every year. The western US is in its sixth year of a drought. Forest fires this year are expected to exceed what we have known in the past, and the fire season has already started - almost four months early. No analysis provided. The Arctic is melting rapidly, and we get stories about how having the pole as open water will reduce shipping costs. Now that's looking on the "bright" side.

Will people start wondering about weather "anomalies" in a larger context? I hope so and I think so. The seed of doubt will have been planted. Maybe that is why the media is trying so hard to discredit the fact basis of "The Day After Tomorrow."

whatever.

the movie is as big a POS as "independence day", or "waterworld" and basically makes a mockery of global warming.
holding up bad science fiction as a way to sound alarm bells about a legitimate cause is just plain ignorant- it's "the boy who cried wolf" to the nth degree.

debunking the scenario depicted in "The Day after Tomorrow" ever mention the Pentagon report (which only came out a few short months ago). I remember when I used to work for a film studio. When I did interviews with the media, I had to sign a "rules sheet" ahead of time with the studio which covered what I agreed to discuss and NOT discuss. Rove has sent out many a "rules sheet" to the media prior to this films opening, no doubt.

You seem to be freaking.

how so?

some people still believe he's the son of a god.

try saying 'it's just a movie' to those ppl

i don't really know where you're going with that...but have fun on the way- :hi:

whether they claim the climate can change in 5 days or that there is a magic man in the sky that allowed his only son to be tortured to death because his all-powerful self coudnt figure out a better way to save our souls

both movies are fiction

thats the point

Nice general idea, nicely done with special effects, then this soft romantic story about a dad and his son runs through it, what a failure.

Give me failure like that anyday.

who cares whether or not I'm outvoted?, should I let my opinion be influenced by the general opinion?

This is our "passion of the christ"


i thought the efx were good, but the acting poor. the idea, well... i dont buy into it as much as others.

What the hell? Have we gone that far off the deep end?

...your soapbox and fall off.

Shrek 2 DW $74,100,000
The Day After Tomorrow Fox $70,000,000


http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

Eddie Murphy is scarier than global warming. I, for one, am glad this issue is settled.

The Day After Tomorrow

Yes, the disaster epic is indeed a smash right out of the gate, with a remarkable first day total of $24.3 million. Last year's Memorial Day champ, Bruce Almighty, started off with $20.8 million on its way to $86.4 million over the four-day weekend. I don't expect The Day Afer Tomorrow to duplicate that 4.15 internal multiplier, though it will still be a rather impressive opening (albeit just short of $100 million for the four days). The Day After Tomorrow looks to earn $97.2 million over the holiday weekend.
http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=8638

So flame me Shrekies, hee hee.

from what i hear.

It was right on the money for just being "a movie".

David

I'm embarrased that it is being called a liberal movie because the science is really bad. If I were a neocon I would be laughing at the morons who take this movie seriously. And I do believe global warming is a problem. But anyone who takes this movie seriously is really a sucker.

They sure ain't gonna like that.

I don't think many people really care all that much about the global warming aspect of it other than the relevance to the plot.

This movie stinks worse than AI if you pay to see this crap you either have nothing better to do or yopur setting yourself up for a dissapointment.

great that its bringing the issue of global warming into peoples minds but its definately a wait for dvd movie.

I had better things to do; plumbing repair, paperwork, yardwork...but preferred to let my son take me to the movies. We enjoyed it. Great special effects, typical hollywood storyline. I didn't think it was worse than AI; that was one I didn't care for.

There were some amusing things; the vp looks like Cheney, and is basically a jerk until the last 5 minutes of the movie. The president looks like Gore and is a hero. I never considered whther or not the science was bad, because it is science fiction. It doesn't have to be accurate. It's a movie. The reaction of the bureaucracy to warnings of a crisis was pretty typical, though.

The story was ok; plenty of tension between characters, some romance, etc. The homeless guy and the dog were the best characters in the whole thing, IMO.

I don't think it was crap, and I'm not disappointed. Neither am I a "sheeple." I don't see too many movies; 3 or 4 a year, usually. And always because a family member wants me to. It was fine; not a waste of my time. Not the best movie I've ever seen, but well done for a sci-fi disaster flick, imo.

Although I go to the moves more often than you but I enjoyed this disaster movie. I think most people that went to see this movie is not thinking about Global warming or anything. They just want to see a good entertainment movie and that is what this was.

Just my three cents…

1. This movie had about as much relevance to the dangers of global warming as Jurassic Park has on the dangers of genetic engineering. The fact that certain groups have decided to use it as a political tool is quite scary.

2. Does anybody who wants to use this movie for political gains have ANY idea who Art Bell is? He’s the guy behind the book The Day After Tomorrow is based on. The radio show he hosts, Coast to Coast AM, is basically Grand Central Station for any tin foil hat or whacked out crack pot idea. He has had too many SERIOUS conversations about poltergeists, zombies, spirits, the difference between types of ghosts, time travel, UFOs, and big foot to count. I love his show because it is almost comedy until you realize he is serious about that crack pot ****.

3. What the hell does how well it did against Shrek II have to do with anything? You’re up chocolate creek without a popsicle stick (still laughing my ass off at that movie) if you think it means a hill of beans.

4. This movie is just too corny for any educated American to get ‘risen to action’ about global warming.

5. It gave the third world too much of a pass on things while trying to ‘screw’ only western society. Until third world nations get even close the environmental regulations we have I don’t want to hear people insinuate that they don’t pollute.


Edit: Art Bell hasn't hosted Coat to Coast AM for quite a while now. He was host for a couple years an basically grew the show.

if you think the third world produces anywhere near as much pollution as the US does.

"if you think the third world produces anywhere near as much pollution as the US does."

I'm talking about the regulations. They don't produce as much pollution because they don't have anywhere near as much production going on.

However, their environmental regulations for the production they do have are laughable compared to what we have with the EPA. If the US had the same regs in place as places like Mexico, this entire world would be filled with smog.

they don't have anywhere near as much production going on."

OK, so what you are saying then is , as far as global warming goes, they aren't having as much effect anyway and therefore regulating them better won't do enough to stopping global warming.

Thanks for the insights.

I work for a consulting firm helping companies get into compliance with the regulations we have in the United States. I'm not going to give those nations a pass like you guys are. I don't think that protecting the environment is something only Western civilization should think about. Unless they get their act together, they will continue to grow and continue to create more pollution.

Until nations like Mexico decide to do what is right, American manufacturers will continue to send more production down there to get away from American regulations.

Seriously, do you not remember what happened when the United States ignored this stuff the way you guys are claiming we should allow third world nations to?

companies that are de-regulated per the Republican American Dream.

My lord, do you get ANY news outside of DU? We could drop about half of our environmental regulations and we would still be a pillar or regulation compared to the third world. Just like you can’t listen to 90% of what Hannity says, you can’t listen to everything the Sierra Club and Greenpeace says.

People bitch about sending jobs overseas but then in the next breath want more regulations that will practically guarantee it will continue. Until nations like India, Mexico, and the South American nations have regulations like we do, companies will continue to go there to find ways around the regulations and take the jobs with them.

Why do you continue to turn a blind eye to the third world standards and obsess over our relatively high standards?


BTW, I didn't want to go down this road. I was jut pointing out problems with The Day After Tomorrow and why it's not a good idea to tie a political stance to it.

the third world for the most part lacks the technical know-how and the funds to control its pollution beyond a certain point.

Whereas the US certainly has the financial and technical capacity to abide by the kyoto protocols. The only thing stopping it from doing so is the greed and reluctance of corporate America to spend a dime on anything that would have the slightest negative impact to its bottom line. Not even after all the huge tax breaks they've been given(not earned) from Boosh.

"the third world for the most part lacks the technical know-how and the funds to control its pollution beyond a certain point."

That is pure bull. If you really think that you need to do some research on environmental regulations.

To claim that third world nations can't put in controls because they are too dumb or can't afford it but then claim that the United States can put controls in for virtually no cost is pure ignorance.

that we shouldn't take steps to reduece our own emissions(far grater than anyone else's btw) because some others in the third world won't do it in theirs makes is like stating we have no obligation to reduce our own domestic crime because others in certain other countries won't do likewise in theirs. It's a totally asinine, childish argument.

"It's a totally asinine, childish argument."

And it's not what I said.

Read my original post. I was making a statement on the way that TDAT basically gave the third world a total pass. Then somebody decided to start defending third world environmental regulations.

And its also the bogus excuse given by the Bush adminstration for backing out of Kyoto. Shows them for the petty little asses that they are.

'sort of implied it' is nothing more than you reading more into the post than what was in it. People can make statements about other nations and their relatively poor environmental regulations when compared to the United States without being a right wing zealot who wants to start pumping arsenic into water.

that the US should base its environmental policy on the activity of countries in the third world, who don't produce even a tenth of the pollution that the US does? That certainly sound like what you're saying. Why the hell else would you mention them?

The neo-cons always have a convenient scapegoat, don't you?

"Why the hell else would you mention them?"

Are you seriously incapable of discerning between comments on third world environmental regulations and ‘neo-con frothing’?

Do you even read posts before replying? Since you didn't, here's what started this tangent...

"It gave the third world too much of a pass on things while trying to ‘screw’ only western society. Until third world nations get even close the environmental regulations we have I don’t want to hear people insinuate that they don’t pollute."

This came up because I said that TDAT gave the third world too much of a pass on things while blaming western society for everything. Then somebody took that to mean that I'm saying the insane things you are now accusing me of saying. I then explained what I'm speaking of in regard to the fact that the vast majority of developing nations have laughable environmental regulation. I never said a DAMN thing about wanting to reduce our environmental regulations but you have decided that's what I must mean for some insane reason.

NO, I don't think that the US should lower our standards to those of the third world.

Did I ever say that? No.

Did you decide that must be what I mean because I look at the environment as a GLOBAL and not just national issue? Yes.

I think more pressure should be placed on third world nations to improve their regulations to a somewhat comparable level to ours. Otherwise companies are going to continue going South and going over seas to get around the regulations in the United States. When that happens we lose jobs and the environment continues to get the shaft.

What’s so hard to understand about it? Do you really prefer the depth of discussion on the environment on this site to consist of nothing more than debates over how much * hates the environment and how he is trying to kill it? That's what I see. A person can't make a factual statement about third world environmental regulations without being accused of 'neo-con frothing'.

Let me just clarify my position on third world environmental regulations…

I DO NOT think that the United States should decrease its standards to those of the third world. However, if we continue to pass environmental regulations on companies that increase the cost of production when labor is already cheaper in third world nations, we will push them to go overseas.

When that happens not only do we lose jobs but we also lose control over the emissions those companies produce. They still produce the pollution, they just do it somewhere else. As long as there are nations with laughable regulations this will continue to happen.

The only way to prevent this is to convince nations such as India, Mexico, and the South American nations to improve their environmental regulations so they aren’t such a safe haven for these companies.

Please note one more time that I NEVER claimed the EPA should lower its regulations. I’m simply stating the environment is MUCH MUCH more than a one nation political issue. It’s an international issue that must be addressed on international terms.

Too many times I hear people want stricter regs here but then claim that the nations who those new regs would push some companies to are too 'dumb' or poor to enforce regulations of their own. What's the point then? Why enforce regulations here when all a company has to do is go South of the border to produce with even less requirements than we had decades ago? We have to do what we can to encourage stricter regulations in other nations as well as ours.

and it should be taken as such. The reason there is so much talk about the "science" of it is because the Bush administration is so paranoid about it's junking of every treaty and roll-back of damn near all the environmental advances that have been made in the past 30 years. If they weren't so nearly hysterical about this reflecting badly on them, there wouldn't be such a public spectacle over this film. It's a MOVIE. See it or don't see it, believe it or don't believe it. Don't claim that it is junk science, because no one really knows what the end result of all the changes in the weather we are seeing will be.

Click here.

After you've read ten or twenty of the peer reviewed scientific papers about abrupt climate change that appear in refereed journals, you can talk about "junk science".

Of course, once you have read them, you won't think it's all just "junk science".

--bkl

"After you've read ten or twenty of the peer reviewed scientific papers about abrupt climate change that appear in refereed journals, you can talk about "junk science"."

Take about two minutes to look at the background of the guys who put "The Coming Global Superstorm" (the book that inspired The Day After Tomorrow) together before you decide this is legimate science. Hitching your wagon to him is just plain insane.

Art Bell probably also believes that water freezes at 32F. Whether he does or not won't move that point by even one one-trillionth of a Kelvin.

I'm very familiar with the authors. I've read a lot of Strieber's fiction. I've listened to Bell's radio show once or twice. I also read The Coming Global Superstorm.

What Art Bell (and Whitley Strieber) believes, or thinks, or does, is not something I base my own thinking on. Bell's show is a hoot, and Strieber is one of the best popular fiction writers working. Neither of them came up with the theory out of the blue. They may have popularized it, but that was all they did. And I was impressed how well they handled the science writing in the book -- it was solid, clean, kept away from the fictional chapters, and devoid of new-agey appeals.

I also enjoy watching Kelsey Grammer in Frasier, the movies of Arnold Schwartzenegger and Charleton Heston, and I've enjoyed a couple of Amy Grant's songs. They are all Bush Republicans, but the day I let personal disagreements ruin my ability to think for myself or enjoy a movie or a song is the day I'll pack it in.

Incidentally, "science" is not some abstract quality, it's a method of inquiry, and "the science" behind theories of abrupt climate change is well-founded, documented, peer-reviewed and has already passed muster with the ghosts of Ockham, Sagan, and Popper (parsimony, puissance, and falsifiability).

If you let Art Bell and Whitley Strieber determine your judgement in matters of scientific study, you're doing yourself a disservice.

--bkl

I agree completely but try to take it in the context of this thread. It's kind of ironic that you post this comment...

"If you let Art Bell and Whitley Strieber determine your judgement in matters of scientific study, you're doing yourself a disservice."

...in a thread started by somebody who was claiming that their work will have an impact on the 'judgement' of the public about global warming.

because global warming effects are happening rapidly right now.
much faster than scientists thought they would even a few short years ago -- and every year the effects seem to get more drastic.
and as far as a global dust storms go -- winds already carry african dust to the carribean and beyond -- one speculation is that bacteria or viruses that have been exposed due to deforestation could wind up where they don't belong and create a deadly situation.

Dust storms have been happening for a lot longer than we have been producing enough green house gases to impact the environment.

3 cents...
how do u explain this? please enlighten me.

ill actually be amazed if you even know what your looking at. (scoff)

Oooh wow, ice core information, I haven't seen that stuff since I took entire classes on it.

Just FYI, I'm an environmental engineer. Don't put up one graph and claim the issue is done, ESPECIALLY if you are going to put up a graph that doesn't give any more detail to the past 100 years than the past 100,000 years and ESPECIALLY if you aren’t going to discuss the graph at all. Graphs without discussion over what they imply are useless.

Take a look at the scale of your graph and then tell me that the Egyptians caused global warming. Then look a little further back in time and tell me that Neanderthal men caused global warming. You seem giddy over claiming that a recent (as in a 10,000 to 20,000 year spike, not just the industrial age) spike is due to humans but then you just ignore the other cyclical spikes that are a part of living and existing on earth.

The only way that graph would even come close to saying anything about global warming and the industrial age would be with a logarithmic scale. The way you posted it, the most recent 100 years make up about .025% of the entire graph. SCOFF all you want but your graph is meaningless if you are trying to prove that global warming as we know it is causing higher dust levels. In fact, you just proved the post you were responding to. Particulate matter was a problem BEFORE global warming started.

This is what I hate so much about environmental issues. Both sides seem to think that one fact here or one fact there settle the entire issue. Neither wants to consider the big picture.



BTW, I didn't want to go down this road. I was jut pointing out problems with The Day After Tomorrow and how it's no more a political movie than Jurrasic Park.

I’m sorry but your asinine post deserves a better reply. You want to make a claim like “ill actually be amazed if you even know what your looking at. (scoff)” when you don’t have the slightest idea what you just posted. If you are trying to use that plot of ice core information to claim that the global warming issue we know of is causing higher particulate matter levels you need to do a few things…

First, notice your graph is for 400,000 years.

Second, realize the types of things that contribute to global warming from humans (cars, manufacturing, large scale forest deforestation) have only been going on for about 100 years.

Third, realize your graph is only 369 pixels wide.

Fourth, admit that a grand total of LESS THAN ONE PIXEL on the ENTIRE graph has anything to do with the past century.


Scoff?

I don’t even know what I’m looking at?

Give me a break. Your post is one of the most ignorant things I’ve seen posted in quite a while.

ttt because a fool was trying to make look stupid with a bogus reason. What scares me is you probably use that graph quite a bit not knowing what you are doing. That type of stuff is more damaging to environmental causes than you know.

that ice cores show significant increases in greenhouse gases that coincide with the industrial revolution and atmospheric warming?

I sure hope not.

what a head-poppin rant too =)
as far as i know the idustrializing began a few hundred years ago - i.e. steam/coal and stuff (which is shown in the record) Egyptians? wtf..

and i thought u were wierd! dr wierd!

"as far as i know the idustrializing began a few hundred years ago - i.e. steam/coal and stuff"

If you want us to go back the emissions levels of the 1700's, we're pretty much flat out screwed. The entire world production of greenhouse gases back them was about the same as some large states now. Take into account the fact that we would then have to tell all third world nations, Europe, and CHINA to stop growing and there's no reason to even care any more.

"(which is shown in the record) Egyptians? wtf.."

You put up a graph trying to make me look like an ignorant fool when the graph indicates that the Egyptian era had just as much to do with global warming as the modern era. If you don't understand the time scale of your graph, you're a bigger fool than I thought in my original rant.

PLEASE, if you are just giong to spew stuff like you did in your original response to me, just sit back and let people who know what they are talking about do the debating over environmental issues. You really have no idea how much damage you do to the environmenta movement by posting stuff like that.

"as far as i know the idustrializing began a few hundred years ago"

The graph you put up indicates that the rise in particulate matter has been going on for about 20,000 years. Remember the graph that you thought I'm too dumb to understand? The one that you have absolutely no grasp of yourself?

The graph, representing 400000 years, is less than 400 pixels wide. That means the last 1000 years are represented by the very last single pixel-width of the graph. At the very least, an expanded zoom on the last 10000 years would be needed to isolate a potential cause for the spike.

Furthermore, can we be certain that the ice core samples representing the graph, overall, have been taken at such even and dense sampling intervals that they wouldn't miss a comparable sudden spike, say, 352025 years back?

Blindly attacking someone's POV with that graph, in its current state, is extremely poor form, IMHO.

and arguing against it is laughable.

"the data is solid.. even if you dont like the graph."

One freaking pixel of information is solid? Nobody here claimed that global warming doesn't exist.

However, you did try to make me look like a fool by posting a graph with ONE PIXEL of relevant information and proceeded to 'scoff' at me. We are telling you that your weak attempt at an insult only showed your lack of knowledge on the issue. Your ignorance should not be given a pass when you make comments like you did in your original reply.

"that ice cores show significant increases in greenhouse gases that coincide with the industrial revolution and atmospheric warming?"

No, I'm not insane. However, when somebody uses a graph of the recent 20,000 year spike in paritulate matter to claim that I don't know what I'm talking about, I make sure they realize they are wrong.

not a solid.

if your speaking of the regular cycles... in non of those cycles was a human industrial society present.

its obviously combined. which places 100 percent of the problem on man-kinds shoulders. sorry.

So now it's all mankind regardless of what level of technology of natural resource consumption we are at? You're changing what you are trying to prove every single post. One time you are trying to claim it's the current era, then the past three hundred years, now all of the history of mankind.

Soon you'll hopefully realize your graph is not a good indication for the past 100 years. There are good sources for proving that but the 400,000 year CO2 ice cap data is not it.

We were talking about dust storms and the impact that global warming has on them. You then decided to post an extremely weak attempt at an insult without even posting what the PPM units were in reference to. Forgive me if we continued to discuss CO2 levels in the way they impact pariculate matter levels. If you don't understand why it happened, please read the posts.

BTW, I know that greenhouse gas caused global warming during the industrial age exists. My entire rant has been in response to your completely ignorant graph in which you attempted to make me look like a fool when you had no idea what the graph you were posting actually says.

:shrug:

Or see some posts in this thread. The neo-cons are acting like we're gonna take away their Humvees because of this movie. I love it!

Talking about "bad science"--isn't the preferred phrase "junk science"?

There is quite a bit of "good science" about Global Warming. This film is science fiction--stuff probably won't happen that fast. But it's a good opportunity for some boffo special effects.

And watch the conservatives froth. (I am NOT being paid to post.)

"There is quite a bit of "good science" about Global Warming. This film is science fiction--stuff probably won't happen that fast. But it's a good opportunity for some boffo special effects. "

Read the posts before writing a person off as a 'frothing neo-con'. The movie was taken up as a political tool by Moveon.org and Al Gore before any 'frothing neo-con' gave a **** about it. If peole with that much of a voice are going to hitch their wagon to science fiction movies, there should be a response to it. Trying to claim that this movie is a good reason to look further into global warming only harms the environmental movement.

And I'm not paid to do this either. I'm just bored out of my ever living mind today.

very frothy. and typical tactics used over and over....

"very frothy. and typical tactics used over and over...."

Give me a break. Al Gore and Moveon.org made this a political flick by giving POLITICAL SPEECHES about it and propping it up as a chance to put out the word about global warming. If you don't want people to talk about Al Gore and Moveon.org making this sci-fi flick a poltical statement, your beef is with them, not me.

Do you have a handy-dandy graph that you don't understand that you can post to 'scoff' at me again? If not, give it up. You were called out on your bogus insults and now you are pouting because you know you're the fool for posting information too complex for you to understand.

Sorry, but you're just not. You're way too over-excited (frothing is a good word), way too eager to insult and disdain, and AFAIC just wrong on the political issues.

I've seen plenty of remarks (and posted one) that the move is GOOD science (aside from the overly fast effects), and this is obviously going to get people's attention. Prior to now, an awful lot of people who I believe would care a lot have had very little in the way of information that could show them "what's in it for me?" re global warming. That, along with the placid reassurances that there's really nothing TO global warming and the obvious inattention by our leaders, needs to be overcome. I'm hoping it scares the bejeesus out of millions of Americans -- and if it takes some science fiction thrown in with some GOOD science about the thermohaline cycle in an obvious commercial venture ALSo designed to entertain (no matter how cheesily), then well done and welcome to it is my attitude.

"way too eager to insult and disdain,"

Check the post that created my eagerness. (it's the graph post)

Well, that and I just love arguing.

BTW, I'm STILL cracking up about, "ill actually be amazed if you even know what your looking at. (scoff)" when I had to actually EXPLAIN IT TO YOU because YOU didn't understand it. I just wanted to thank you for an entire afternoon of laughter.

was

1. when the Hispanic family behind me shouted "about time!" to the forgiveness of Latin American debt

2. when the whole theatre cracked up about the closing of the Mexican borders as the southern US tried to flee to Mexico

3. when at the credits a few folks started chanting "USA, USA" and the rest started shouting "Mexico, Mexico"

4. when on the way out people agreed that the most implausible moment was "Cheney" admitting he'd been wrong

wish they'd invested more in decent dialogue & plot -- good special effects

1. when the Hispanic family behind me shouted "about time!" to the forgiveness of Latin American debt


You'd think after giving away all that money that the reply would be "thank you."

I don't think this is going to have any effect on environmental policy.

I hate it when people twist facts to support an agenda. I hated it with Iraq and I hate it with this movie. Ice ages do not come on in a week or two weeks. Besides, the earth has had 60 ice ages in the last three million years. Do you honestly think we can prevent one if it is going to happen anyway?

And the last ice age you lived through was when, Mr. Science?

Granted, the producers of the film took a scientific mystery (mammoths flash frozen with fresh greens in their alimentary canals) and made a three-hour extravaganza out of it. I, for one, thought the film was silly in places and damned riveting in others. The audience I saw it with, pretty talky through the previews, was silent as church mice by the second reel.

I feel comfortable presenting an opinion about the film (I liked it), because at least I saw the damn thing.

I know for one thing that I saw an interview later with the PRODUCERS OF THE DAMN MOVIE in which they said that the snow and ice producing super cells were completely pulled out of their ass to create an instant ice age.

The movie's science was not only bad, but it also was not well made in general.

is the only "science fiction" about the "science." The underlying science -- other than that -- is valid.

(How many times do I have to repeat that? Sheesh.)

They might convince the uneducated masses that climate change can occur in seven days or that it is entirely our fault that it is happening. The fact is that, in all probability, the planet will eventually have another ice age whether we like it or not. The most we are doing is speeding up that eventuality.

If Bush wins again they'll follow you to the toilet!

Ok, seriously guys... it's a movie, not a documentary. If I watch something on the History Channel, I critique it for historical fact. If I watch a movie, I expect to be entertained.

And this movie was entertaining. And it has a lot more scientific basis than "The Passion of the Christ".

The leftist slant to it was amusing though. The homeless guy remarking about fuel use, the little American "wetback" scene, cracked me up.

So, while only being slightly more plausible than the Lord of the Rings, it still was entertaining (probably moreso than Van Helsing... then again, Van Helsing had Kate Beckinsdale. mmmmm.)

Anyway, I'd bet money this does raise awareness about global warming. After I got home from it, I did some research myself. Perhaps that's asking too much of the Suvivor-watching average American idiot, but hey, one can hope.

Oh, and guess what? Wolves don't attack humans either.

win easily. Wolves are wimps.

Would Global Warming's effects happen so quickly & so dramatically? No. But the film gives scientists an excuse to explain just how it does work. The all-too-predictable cries of "junk science" are the same ones directed against the entire concept of Global Warming.

And I haven't seen it yet. It appears the film may be a bit elf-deficient for my tastes. Although I've seen the Gollum lookalike they cast as Vice President.

"The all-too-predictable cries of "junk science" are the same ones directed against the entire concept of Global Warming."

I fully believe that global warming exists but still think this movie was NOT a scientific movie and should not be a political movie.

I would compare it to Jurrasic Park. Yes, finding dinosaur DNA and using it to clone new dinosaurs is possible. The only difference in the two movies is Jurrasic Park sparred the political stuff and nobody used Jurrasic Park to 'rais awareness' of the dangers of genetic engineering. They're just movies, not political statements.

Ha ha. USA Today gets cute with headline

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-05-31-box-office_x.htm