"The day after tomorrow"

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Anyone else seen it?

Its quite a controversial firm, arguing that excessive selfishness could lead to disaster(although, it posits that the first ice age occurred naturally, and so it seems that at best we may have just sped things up a bit.) but it also sets out a range of attributes that are noteworthy for us, which doesn't include a belief in God, but it does include a selflessness.

other thoughts?

dlw

[brother vinny]

Anyone else seen it?

Its quite a controversial firm, arguing that excessive selfishness could lead to disaster(although, it posits that the first ice age occurred naturally, and so it seems that at best we may have just sped things up a bit.) but it also sets out a range of attributes that are noteworthy for us, which doesn't include a belief in God, but it does include a selflessness.

other thoughts?

dlw

My thoughts are that it is the height of human hubris to think that we-- either acting collectively or as individuals-- can have some impact on the environment on a global scale.

But maybe that's just me. I could be wrong.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

My thoughts are that it is the height of human hubris to think that we-- either acting collectively or as individuals-- can have some impact on the environment on a global scale.

But maybe that's just me. I could be wrong.

We do impact the environment and the whole is always greater than the sum of the parts.

dlw

[Christianotaku]

we do not impact the enviroment greatly only in small local factors and basically we can not cause a ice age the movie has cool effects but no story or science of any substance..

[Christy]

Why are people so quick to dismiss it though?

[DunnySaze]

we do not impact the enviroment greatly only in small local factors and basically we can not cause a ice age the movie has cool effects but no story or science of any substance..

We certainly can cause large scale global environmental changes, but the science in this movie is atrocious.

[brother vinny]

We certainly can cause large scale global environmental changes, but the science in this movie is atrocious.

In Americanese, bad science always translates to good moviemaking. Why do you think there's sound in space in nearly all of our science-fiction films?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

We certainly can cause large scale global environmental changes, but the science in this movie is atrocious.

I'm very glad to hear that.

dlw

[jason]

I saw the film last night. Perhaps it is enviromentalist propaganda but I did enjoy the film.

No idea how good the science was, but I am not a climatologist. I know I cringe when they do 'computer speak' and programing stuff in films so perhaps it was dreadful, but I don't know any better so it is all good.

I had low expectations for the film so it wasn't a disappointment.

Jason

[The Laughing Man]

The movie looks like the environmentalist doomsayers' wet dream.

[brother vinny]

The movie looks like the environmentalist doomsayers' wet dream.

That's the second time a professed Christian has used the phrase "wet dream" in the Ampitheatre. I wasn't aware that it was couth to speak so blithely about nocturnal emissions in a family environment.

[Ryokan]

I thought it was good. Cheesy, with bad science. But it was fun. And that is what counts in a summer blockbuster. As far as Climatic change goes, I think our climate is changing(duh) and it may be for the better or the worse. But I don't see how a scientist could demonstrate that we are causing that change when the predicted changes are well within the bounds of nature. And there is only one experiment set.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

The non-experimental nature of our observations of climactic changes does make it easy for people to appeal to chaos theory as a means of saying that existing changes were inevitable and not attributable to particular actions by us humans.

But time-series analysis, while imperfect, can strengthen or weaken the case for causal arguments about how we affect the environment. From a theoretical standpoint, our pollution emissions should affect our environment.

dlw

[brother vinny]

The non-experimental nature of our observations of climactic changes does make it easy for people to appeal to chaos theory as a means of saying that existing changes were inevitable and not attributable to particular actions by us humans.

But time-series analysis, while imperfect, can strengthen or weaken the case for causal arguments about how we affect the environment. From a theoretical standpoint, our pollution emissions should affect our environment.

dlw

But not with the impact of, say, all the volcanoes that erupt each year, spewing ozone-depleting chemicals.

Or even of all the cows that fart.

[Ryokan]

The non-experimental nature of our observations of climactic changes does make it easy for people to appeal to chaos theory as a means of saying that existing changes were inevitable and not attributable to particular actions by us humans.

But time-series analysis, while imperfect, can strengthen or weaken the case for causal arguments about how we affect the environment. From a theoretical standpoint, our pollution emissions should affect our environment.

dlw

There are alot of things that should be true from a theoretical standpoint that don't play out in fact. Can we make policy that will costs billions if not trillions on such weak data?