From the New York Post. Not exactly the paper of record or anything (especially since it's from Page Six - the gossip column), but I thought it at least slightly interesting: http://www.nypost.com/seven/04292004/gossip/pagesix.htm April 29, 2004 -- A POLITICALLY-charged disaster movie about global warming is burning up the George Bush campaign, while John Kerry backers hope "The Day After Tomorrrow" will sway eco-conscious voters to their side. The partisan swirl surrounding the $125 million thriller is underscored by Al Gore's decision to hold a huge environmental rally just a few blocks away from the May 24 premiere at the Museum of Natural History. Directed by "Independence Day" helmer Roland Emmerich, "The Day After Tomorrow" follows the onset of a new Ice Age just three days after the polar ice caps melt because of smokestack and tailpipe gas emissions. The flick, which stars Dennis Quaid and Jake Gyllenhaal, features the flooding and freezing of New York and giant tornadoes ripping through Los Angeles. In addition to the rally, hosted by Bush-bashing political group Moveon.org, volunteers will be recruited to hand out global warming brochures titled "Could This Really Happen?" at theaters. " 'The Day After Tomorrow' presents us with a great opportunity to talk about the scientific realities of climate change," Gore said in a statement to Daily Variety's Gabriel Snyder. "Millions of people will be coming out of theaters on Memorial Day weekend asking the question, 'Could this really happen?' " While the ecological catastrophes depicted in the flick are nearly impossible to imagine happening in the near future, it hasn't stopped the Bush administration from treating the would-be blockbuster with caution. The Times reported that NASA ordered its scientists not to comment about "Day" because of fears that it could hurt Bush politically. Moveon.org executive director Peter Schurman says "Day" is "the movie George Bush doesn't want you to see." Bush spokesman Terry Holt fumed: "It's typical of Al Gore to not be able to separate fact from fiction. I think Gore's attempt at political mischief-making is just an attempt to get attention for himself. People know what they're watching is entertainment, and not grounded in basic scientific fact." Florence Grace, a spokeswoman for distributor 20th Century Fox, said the film "is meant to entertain audiences with a mix of spectacle and emotion. If it also increases awareness and inspires audiences to take an interest in some of the issues raised in the film, then all the better."
Anyone with any sort of environmental leanings who plans on voting for Bush now is too vapid to have their mind changed by now, even by a Hollywood movie.
This always gets me. The conservative argument against global warming is that there is no concrete evidence that it is true. What if they are wrong? Thats like saying that if I jump off this cliff, there is no proof I will die. Yea, but the stakes are pretty high if your wrong. Conservative accountants always take the worst case scenario because they don't want to be wrong. Well conservative politicians are not doing this. IF global warming is happening because of polution, we probably can't recover. Humanity, as we know it, will be gone. But hey, lets keep the cost of oil down. Another reason why the tag "conservative" is a load of crap.
this is my position on the pro-choice movement...what if you're wrong and it is life? having said that, i'm hearing that NASA is saying that this movie is basically based on junk science. i'm not sure it's a good idea to attach your political movement/party/ideals to this movie in any fundamental way.
It is generally not a good idea to attach your political movement/party/ideals to anything in Hollywood whatsoever.
this is idiotic, campaign targeting to yourself and not to people that you should be targeting is always a bad idea.
I've heard that the movie is so over the top and not grounded in any reasonable science. That worries me because I bet the naysayers will use it to mock legitimate Climate Change science.
well i dont think the environmentalists are saying that the events from this movie are exactly what will happen, but are trying to use this movie as an eye-opener that our (humans) actions DO have consiquences on the environment and that the bill will come due someday. Their message is that we need to have better long-term thinking about these issues before it is too late.
It is a movie. It is fiction. It is made to make money. There is no requiement for it being scientific.
of course not. but just like the DaVinci Code and JFK, if you put it in a movie as even a vague assertion of fact, you'll have a following of "believers." and when you have politicians stumping outside the opening of the movie that certainly lends some credibility to a movie that, as you say, is fiction. and that's a mistake, in my view.
What if aliens invade ala Independence Day? What if a virus turns most of the world's population into flesh-eating zombies? What if, what if, what if...... What if is not a reason to destroy our economy via the awful Kyoto protocol or something similar. Besides, if the Earth is getting warmer, I see that as a positive. I hate cold weather sans snow! Maybe this will sway you from your global warming paranoia. link link
Yeah exactly. HELLO, people: this is the same dude who made Independence Day. Have you seen the previews? It's looks enormously stupid and enormously entertaining. Realistic? Uh, no (pentagon memos concerning global warming aside, of course). As for global warming, as I've posted here a zillion times: yes, many of our pollutants can only act to warm our atmosphere. The question is one of *extent*. But there is no question that "greenhouse gases" do their thang in the atmosphere. To use the cliff analogy posted above. We're not necessarily jumping, but we do know that what we're doing is edging us closer and closer to the edge of the cliff.
