Even tho MoveOn.org promotes this movie as anti-Bush propaganda, I didn't see it that way.
Andy writes:
This comment by Roger was particularly baffling: "When did the movie say that man-made emissions were the cause of the disaster?" Does Roger think the movie is about something else?Yes, I do think that the movie was about something else. The hero of the movie was a scientist who studied ice ages of the past, and had some theories about them. His theories had nothing to do with man-made emissions, as there were no significant man-made emissions at the times of the previous ice ages. Factoids supporting his quick-onset theory were things like finding a wooly mammoth that had been frozen with food still in his stomach. His theory was not that man-made emissions cause sudden ice age, because he didn't even look at man-made emissions. His theory was that ice ages of the past had occurred suddenly from natural causes.
The mainstream scientists and environmentalists had rejected his theory, and so did the VP. The hero didn't even really believe his theory himself, as he had not run the mainframe simulations that would support his theory.
The VP in the movie looked more like Dick Cheney than Al Gore, but he acted more like Gore. The VP acted like he was in charge of all scientific matters, was very interested in scientific questions, and thought that he was capable of deciding which scientists were right and which were wrong. It sounds more like Gore than Cheney.
Based on the publicity, I expected the movie to have a confrontation between a Cheney clone and some environmentalists, with the environmentalists being proven right. But there were no environmentalists who were proven correct. The climate changes are a surprise to everyone, and the VP adapts to the facts and theories as rapidly as anyone else.
No comments:
Post a Comment