Moveon.org...bordering on ridiculousness

[xnotedgex]

I recieved this email just now, and as much as I support a lot of what moveon stands for, I found myself chuckling at this:

Dear MoveOn member,
Beginning this afternoon, millions of Americans will go see The Day After Tomorrow -- the movie the White House doesn't want you to see. Thousands of MoveOn members will be there to enjoy the show, to help get people talking about the real danger of a climate crisis, and to take action to prevent one.

Get a sense of this movie's drama and spectacular imagery for yourself by viewing the movie's trailer at:

http://www.thedayaftertomorrow.com/trailer2/

It's an exaggerated story, intended to thrill, but it will leave people wondering, "Could this really happen?" Today and tomorrow, thousands of MoveOn members will be handing out flyers, designed to answer people's questions, and to give them a way to take action.

This is an unparalleled opportunity to help people do something to prevent a climate crisis. Twenty million people are expected to see this movie.

Can you help us make the most of this opportunity? Join in the fun at:

http://action.moveon.org/dayafter/

Thanks for all you do. It makes such a difference.

Sincerely,

--Carrie, Joan, Noah, Peter, and Wes
The MoveOn.org Team
May 28th, 2004

[yeat182]

are you kidding?

"The movie the whitehouse doesn't want you do see" ?

[xnotedgex]

Yea, I think they are letting their disapproval in other areas of the administration get the best of them and this is out of hand. I seriously doubt a lot of people will take it seriously though.

[yeat182]

yeah, i can't imagine people taking it seriously. do you think they would have released a similar email if Indenpendence Day was released this summer?

[Sinister Rouge]

It is more for the support of the director........he made this movie because of Bush's bad environmental policies.......

[Justin_stacy]

........he made this movie because of Bush's bad environmental policies.......

What are you looking to win the stupid comment of the day award??? Cartoonish movies like this are made for one reason and one reason only, Money....

And let me guess, you also believe that he made Independence Day to protest the government's cover up of aliens? And Godzilla and Eight Legged Freaks to protest animal abuse?







here's an interest article...

Storm warning
Washington Times

By Ed Feulner


Those of us old enough to remember the 1970s sometimes think of it as the era of the bad disaster movie. Well, get ready for some cinematic deja vu.
Sure, the upcoming film "The Day After Tomorrow" has a bigger budget and better special effects. But it flaunts the same lack of scientific credibility as, say, "Jaws" once did.

This time the culprit is carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas we exhale every time we breathe. CO2 is also produced when we burn fossil fuels.
In the film, CO2 causes global warming. An Antarctic ice sheet melts. The oceans cool and the Gulf Stream stops. A massive summer snowstorm drowns much of North America under hundreds of feet of snow. No one is prepared for these changes, since they happen over just three days.
It gets worse. Eventually, the ice melts and inland areas flood. Ireland endures hurricanes while huge hailstones pelt Japan. Whew. It's enough to make you want to hold your breath. Except it's all hot air.
The entire scenario hinges on shutting down the Gulf Stream, the warm ocean current that flows west to east. But that couldn't happen. In a recent letter to Nature magazine, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Carl Wunsch points out, "the occurrence of a climate state without the Gulf Stream any time soon — within tens of millions of years — has a probability of little more than zero."
Still, the opinion of real experts such as Mr. Wunsch isn't enough to silence self-proclaimed experts such as former presidential candidate Al Gore. He says the film "presents us with a great opportunity to talk about the scientific realities of climate change." This, he claims, is "an emergency that seems to be unfolding in slow motion, but actually is occurring very swiftly — not as swiftly as the movie portrays, but swiftly in the context of human history."
Well, let's keep Mr. Gore's "human history" in context. After all, Galileo didn't invent the thermometer until the 1590s, and we've been keeping detailed temperature records for only the last 100 years or so.
The only thing swift about global warming is how swiftly it has replaced the idea of global cooling. As recently as the 1970s, scientists were worried about another ice age.
"During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade," the National Science Board announced in 1974. "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end ... leading into the next glacial age."
That prediction hasn't worked out. So there's reason to be skeptical when a group such as moveon.org tries to stir up fear by handing out flyers warning "global warming isn't just a movie; it's your future."
Let's set the rhetoric aside and look at the facts. The average temperature measured at the Earth's surface has risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last 100 years. But satellite measurements haven't shown a comparable trend and, in fact, show a slight cooling in the last 20 years.
Global warming may be a problem, and we should keep studying it. But it's too soon for radical and expensive, steps.
That's why it's important to have policy institutes such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute. For 20 years, CEI has been dedicated to providing sound science and debunking the myths spread by environmental extremists.
The fact is, to bring down CO2 emissions, we would have to shrink the global economy. In 2001, for example, greenhouse gas emissions declined by 1.2 percent, mostly because of a 3.5 percent decline in economic growth. Small wonder the Senate voted down the infamous Kyoto Accord 95-0.
This summer, millions of Americans will sit in air-conditioned movie theaters and watch a frightening film. But the real risk today isn't global warming — it's that we'll overreact and damage our economy in an unnecessary attempt to prevent climate change.
Let's hope cooler heads prevail.

[Justin_stacy]

I recieved this email just now, and as much as I support a lot of what moveon stands for, I found myself chuckling at this:

Dear MoveOn member,
Beginning this afternoon, millions of Americans will go see The Day After Tomorrow -- the movie the White House doesn't want you to see. Thousands of MoveOn members will be there to enjoy the show, to help get people talking about the real danger of a climate crisis, and to take action to prevent one.

Get a sense of this movie's drama and spectacular imagery for yourself by viewing the movie's trailer at:

http://www.thedayaftertomorrow.com/trailer2/

It's an exaggerated story, intended to thrill, but it will leave people wondering, "Could this really happen?" Today and tomorrow, thousands of MoveOn members will be handing out flyers, designed to answer people's questions, and to give them a way to take action.

This is an unparalleled opportunity to help people do something to prevent a climate crisis. Twenty million people are expected to see this movie.

Can you help us make the most of this opportunity? Join in the fun at:

http://action.moveon.org/dayafter/

Thanks for all you do. It makes such a difference.

Sincerely,

--Carrie, Joan, Noah, Peter, and Wes
The MoveOn.org Team
May 28th, 2004


I wonder how many people working with moveon have a stake in this movie? From the looks of the email i'd say quite a few....

[hXc_pwnage]

I found it quite funny.

And how was Sinister's comment stupid? You really think he handles the enviroment well?

I still want to see the movie, though.

[Justin_stacy]

I found it quite funny.

And how was Sinister's comment stupid? You really think he handles the enviroment well?
.

i fixed the quote.....and the comment is stupid because the reason this movie was made was for money, not out of "protest"...no real studio will front a $100 million dollars to make a propaganda film, soley based on that priciple.....there is also, i might add, no truth behind this film, so it really wouldn't be a very good protest piece anyways....would it?

[ohlookitspaul]

wait...are you seriously saying that global warming is a bunch of crap?

[Justin_stacy]

wait...are you seriously saying that global warming is a bunch of crap?

The extremist position on it is....and just so you understand, this film goes far beyond the issue of 'global warming'.....and is basically nothing more then a live action cartoon...and the "Crap," as you put it, is that someone or some group would actually recommending this on the principle of better understanding 'global warming'.....that would be like me rcommending "hot chick" to you, so that you can better understand transgender individuals...

[ohlookitspaul]

yes i fully understand that "day after tomorrow" is obviously an overexaggerated example of the possible effects of global warming. people obviously will not become frozen to the sidewalks on which they stand in a matter of seconds as is shown in the movie. but in the second article that you posted saying how "day after tomorrow" wasn't scientifically plausible, etc., it also pretty much stated in the last half that global warming was just another overhyped thing that liberals were whining about. i was wondering if you agreed with that portion of the article. and i find the fact that you put quotation marks around the phrase global warming to be interesting...

[Justin_stacy]

. i was wondering if you agreed with that portion of the article. and i find the fact that you put quotation marks around the phrase global warming to be interesting...


First I normally put " " around a word as a way to highlight it as the significant word, because the underline and bold button(s) don't work on my computer.......as to the issue of "global warming," the extreme left has blown the idea out of proportion and are now using it as nothing more then a scare tactic, even you, I hope, would admit that.....And to answer your question, no I wouldn’t agree with anyone saying it absolutely "doesn't" exist, but to the same conclusion, I wouldn't agree with anyone who says it absolutely "does" exist....and that is because we don't know for sure, everyday something new comes out to disprove it or help prove it……all that can be said for “sure,” is that with or without us, modern man, the Earth’s tempter has fluctuated…

[hXc_pwnage]

i fixed the quote.....and the comment is stupid because the reason this movie was made was for money, not out of "protest"...no real studio will front a $100 million dollars to make a propaganda film, soley based on that priciple.....there is also, i might add, no truth behind this film, so it really wouldn't be a very good protest piece anyways....would it?
And like I said, the moveon.org thing is pretty funny. I don't see this as protest. I do see this just as a way for the person to make money.

And you can not say that there is no truth. There is truth, just it is extremely overexaggerated. And like Tao said, no one is going to just freeze on the sidewalks.

Like a lot of things these days, they have good messages, but are just extremely off target. The kind of ways they do it turns people off, and that is not what you want to do.

[Sinister Rouge]

What are you looking to win the stupid comment of the day award??? Cartoonish movies like this are made for one reason and one reason only, Money....

And let me guess, you also believe that he made Independence Day to protest the government's cover up of aliens? And Godzilla and Eight Legged Freaks to protest animal abuse?


That is the stupid comment of the day award. The director is an environmentalist and he made this movie to protest Bush's environmental policies. This movie is overblown though, that is the knock against it. Emmurich has an anti-Bush comment on his profile on the movie's website. It is clear he made this movie for more than money.

[Sinister Rouge]

Also moveon.org did say the movie is more fiction than fact, they aren't being ridiculous.

[Justin_stacy]

. I do see this just as a way for the person to make money..
well at least we agree there...money has been shown, in hollywood, to be far more important then principle...

And you can not say that there is no truth. There is truth, just it is extremely overexaggerated.
.

exaggeration by definintion is a distortion of the "truth"...

[xnotedgex]

I wonder how many people working with moveon have a stake in this movie? From the looks of the email i'd say quite a few....

That's a stupid as saying the Bush administration doesn't want you to see this movie...I seriously doubt the people who run moveon.org are looking to get filthy rich...they just hate Bush and go to ridiculous links to express it.

[ohlookitspaul]

First I normally put " " around a word as a way to highlight it as the significant word, because the underline and bold button(s) don't work on my computer.......as to the issue of "global warming," the extreme left has blown the idea out of proportion and are now using it as nothing more then a scare tactic, even you, I hope, would admit that.....And to answer your question, no I wouldn’t agree with anyone saying it absolutely "doesn't" exist, but to the same conclusion, I wouldn't agree with anyone who says it absolutely "does" exist....and that is because we don't know for sure, everyday something new comes out to disprove it or help prove it……all that can be said for “sure,” is that with or without us, modern man, the Earth’s tempter has fluctuated…

no i don't admit that, actually. the movie blows it out of proportion yes, but i don't think the extreme left is. there IS global warming and it is a problem. my bio professor last yr, actually, created "shifting baselines", a non-profit org dedicated to educating people about global warming's effects on the ocean. i think it's actually the extreme right that is scared that global warming is true because if it is then that means a lot of their policies are wrong.

[ohlookitspaul]

also, about earth's temperature fluctuating...

yes it has. but humans have been pouring large amounts of pollutants into the environment, whether it be in the air, in the ocean, or whatever, starting since, well, the industrial revolution practically. that has never happened in earth's history. the only event i can think of that would surpass that would be the eruption of a major volcano or two.

[Justin_stacy]

also, about earth's temperature fluctuating...

yes it has. but humans have been pouring large amounts of pollutants into the environment, whether it be in the air, in the ocean, or whatever, starting since, well, the industrial revolution practically. that has never happened in earth's history. the only event i can think of that would surpass that would be the eruption of a major volcano or two.
Fluctuating temperate are not man made, but are a natural cycle of earth....they have been doing it for millions of years and it is ignorant, to say the least, that it can't be happening now....in fact current research has shown that the earth is now "cooler" then it was 1000yrs ago (before modern industry) and that we are currently coming out of what is called a "little ice age," which may be one of the reasons why temperatures have slowly been rising over the past century.……


Research casts doubt on global warming theory
April 7 2003

The Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists, forcing a rethink on climate change, writes Robert Matthews in London.


Claims that man-made pollution has caused unprecedented global warming have been undermined by research that shows the Earth was warmer in the Middle Ages.

From the outset of the global warming debate in the late-1980s, environmentalists have said that temperatures were rising faster than before, leading some scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases from cars and power stations were causing record temperatures.

Last year, scientists on the UK climate impacts program said that global temperatures were the hottest on record. "We are pretty sure that climate change due to human activity is here and it's accelerating," they said.

This followed research, published in 1998, in which scientists at the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia said the 1990s had been hotter than any other period for 1000 years.

These claims have been sharply contradicted now by a comprehensive study of world temperatures over the past 1000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest nor are they producing the most extreme conditions, in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.


The review, by a Harvard University team, examined the findings of studies of temperature proxies such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts that allowed scientists to estimate temperatures.

The findings prove that the world had a medieval warm period between the ninth and 14th centuries, with world temperatures significantly higher than today's.

They also confirm claims that a little Ice Age set in about 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up, but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.

The end of the little Ice Age is significant because it implies that the records used by climate scientists date from when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's temperature rise.

According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today's "unprecedented" temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period.

The study, to be published in the journal, Energy and Environment, has been welcomed by sceptics of global warming, who say it puts the environmentalists' claims in proper context. Until now, suggestions that the Middle Ages were as warm as the 21st century had been largely anecdotal and were often challenged by believers in man-made global warming.

Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London, said: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history."

Professor Stott said the evidence also undermined doom-laden predictions about the effect of higher temperatures.

"During the medieval warm period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone," he said.

Severe famine and economic collapse followed the little Ice Age. "When the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth," he said.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the official voice of global warming research, has conceded that today's temperatures may be at least partly caused by the Earth recovering from a cold period. While the evidence for entirely natural changes in the Earth's temperature continues to grow, its causes are mysterious.

Simon Brown, the climate extremes research manager at Britain's Meteorological Office, said that the consensus among scientists on the climate change panel was that the medieval warm period could not be used to judge the significance of existing warming.

Dr Brown said: "The conclusion that 20th century warming is not unusual relies on the assertion that the medieval warm period was a global phenomenon. This is not the conclusion of IPCC."

[Justin_stacy]

no i don't admit that, actually. the movie blows it out of proportion yes, but i don't think the extreme left is. there IS global warming and it is a problem. .

The earths tempeture is slightly rising, but this is not UNnatural.....and it is the reasons for "it" (the rise) that i disagree with you on.....the modern idea of global warming, i.e. pollution=warmth (which is what i assumed we were talking about, and is also what the movie "dives" into) is NOT fact.....

i think it's actually the extreme right that is scared that global warming is true because if it is then that means a lot of their policies are wrong.

i will have to disagree with you....i think its the left, particularly the extreme left, that running to make up "new" excuses (scary tatics)..as for once people are starting to question their "findings" and the honesty behind them, instead of just excepting them blindly......

[Justin_stacy]

That's a stupid as saying the Bush administration doesn't want you to see this movie...I seriously doubt the people who run moveon.org are looking to get filthy rich...they just hate Bush and go to ridiculous links to express it.

rubbing the back of one of their own isn't really that hard to believe is it? I mean hell this movie isn't, exactly, getting the best of reviews...

[ohlookitspaul]

well from what i know, the earth went into a "little ice age" ended around 1800 a.d. (http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_15misconceptions.html #ocean_8). i mean, it's already over and temperatures are back.

according to the american geophysical union..."It is scientifically inconceivable that - after changing forest into cities, putting dust and soot into the atmosphere, putting millions of acres of desert into irrigated agriculture, and putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere - humans have not altered the natural course of the climate system."

do you think that the pollutants we have put into the environment are not affecting it? and you can't say we haven't been polluting...

"Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%. These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the earth's atmosphere. Sulfate aerosols, a common air pollutant, cool the atmosphere by reflecting light back into space; however, sulfates are short-lived in the atmosphere and vary regionally.

Why are greenhouse gas concentrations increasing? Scientists generally believe that the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities are the primary reason for the increased concentration of carbon dioxide. Plant respiration and the decomposition of organic matter release more than 10 times the CO2 released by human activities; but these releases have generally been in balance during the centuries leading up to the industrial revolution with carbon dioxide absorbed by terrestrial vegetation and the oceans.

What has changed in the last few hundred years is the additional release of carbon dioxide by human activities. Fossil fuels burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses, and power factories are responsible for about 98% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 24% of methane emissions, and 18% of nitrous oxide emissions. Increased agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production, and mining also contribute a significant share of emissions. In 1997, the United S
States emitted about one-fifth of total global greenhouse gases"
- EPA

[Justin_stacy]

well from what i know, the earth went into a "little ice age" ended around 1800 a.d. (http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_15misconceptions.html #ocean_8). i mean, it's already over and temperatures are back.

dates are not "exact"...and temperatures don't "rise" and "fall" over night....

"More specifically we shall analyze a time spanned by the dates 1450 AD to about 1850 AD when, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, there appeared to be temperatures much cooler than at present, a time which some have named the "Little Ice Age."

and temperatures have still not returned to what they were before the "little ice age"......they are 1.0-1.4ºC lower....

http://www.grisda.org/origins/10051.htm

[UndefinedBoy]

For every scientist that believes global warming is occuring, there will be another that believes it isn't. We won't really know until something big happens, will we?

But we've done so much shit to this planet that it would be ignorant to believe we haven't affected anything.

[open mind]

i know alaska has gotten warmer in the past ten years, our winters are alot warmer and we've gotten less snow, and our summers are hotter, so glaciers are receding rapidly.
i think part of it's just naturally happening, but pollution has also had an effect.

[Duke of Cuntery]

I will take global warming seriously.

I won't take the movie seriously. It's a movie. But if it helps gettin whatshisname out of the White House, i'll clap my hands in glee.

[xnotedgex]

the movie had some pretty intense sequences...overall though its completely unbelievable and the dialogue is so damn cheesy

[venus/bacchus]

I will take global warming seriously.

I won't take the movie seriously. It's a movie. But if it helps gettin whatshisname out of the White House, i'll clap my hands in glee.
If it helps get whatshisname out of the White House, we'll finally have proof of how ignorant and easily manipulated Americans are.

[Duke of Cuntery]

If it helps get whatshisname out of the White House, we'll finally have proof of how ignorant and easily manipulated Americans are.

Finally? We've known that for the last 50 years.

This movie doesn't say anything about the environmental responsibility of consumers. That's not fair. But if it did, people would hate it.

[venus/bacchus]

Finally? We've known that for the last 50 years.

This movie doesn't say anything about the environmental responsibility of consumers. That's not fair. But if it did, people would hate it.
I meant finally have proof...obviously we've known it for a long time