Truths and Myths About Weather in Hollywood Blockbusters »
Posted By zaph22 1 year, 2 months ago in NewsAl Gore's "traveling global warming show," the award-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," includes a long flyover shot of majestic Antarctic ice shelves. But this shot was first seen in the 2004 blockbuster "The Day After Tomorrow." Sculpted from Styrofoam and later scanned into a computer, the ice shelf "
Read Full Story at abcnews.go.com »
256 Views Share Story 26 Comments Report
Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 102 (view all)
-
-
catstevensComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
-
-
0%
libsRfunny1 year, 2 months ago
well, the problem there is, it'd show the Earth was MUCH WARMER than it is today.
Reply -
0%
Silverghost1 year, 2 months ago
LOL, Abntv. Just as good flim-flam though. You can't clone dinosaurs from amber preserved dead tissue. Looks great on screen though!
The computer model has to be an exact representation, possibly, maybe, aw shucks! Get my big footprint & clone it. -Rev. S
Reply
-
-
0%
Wolfie20071 year, 2 months ago
FTA
"Karen Goulekas, the special effects supervisor for "The Day After Tomorrow" said the shot is a digital image. She was glad Al Gore used it in the documentary since "It is one hell of a shot." Both movies use the shot to convincingly portray global warming, but it is left to the audience to decide if this created image can both entertain and educate us about our changing planet."
These glow bull whiners will do anything to make you believe their religion. Even applaud putting make believe in a documentary and they don't even see anything wrong with it.
True believers, zealots, I'd say.
Reply-
rdy2rckComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
-
0%
Bkumm1 year, 2 months ago
I'll vote on this story to help get it the attention it deserves, but I guarentee you that movies made that are against this point of view use shots that are also suspect.
Reply-
0%
zaph221 year, 2 months ago
"but I guarentee you that movies made that are against this point of view use shots that are also suspect."
I don't know if that is true or not, but either way, it doesn't excuse Gore for doing it, the "they did it too" way of looking at it doesn't make what Gore did any more honest, as many of us heard from our parents "Just because all your friends jumped off a bridge...."
Reply -
0%
Silverghost1 year, 2 months ago
BK: There are dishonest people with opposing ideas, but Al Gore? This truth is downright inconvenient! LOL
Certainly convenient & good to have a hay day! HAGD!
Nobody on all the threads has aptly answered why Mars & other planets are heating up at this time. No CO2 emissions there.
The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is minuscule compared to the overall mass of gases. -Rev. S
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Silverghost1 year, 2 months ago
They're cryin, cryin, cryhihiin over CO2! BooHoo! LOL -Rev. S
Reply -
0%
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 2 months ago
No, no we are totaly disillusioned.
He used a CGI clip from a movie, as a background while talking about the Arctic!
The fiendish liar! The fraud! True, the rest of the movie stands as a lighthouse of truth bravely shining against the fog of conservative twaddle, but that is not good enough.
As you know, we leftist have rather, ah, 'higher' standards than the you of the right.
Adieu, Mr. Gore.
Reply
-
-
0%
Dicax_Maximus1 year, 2 months ago
ROTFLMAO !!!!
Styrofoam ????? Well, it does have one of the same properties as another well known substance..... Bull**** !!!
They both float !!
Reply -
0%
crespi1 year, 2 months ago
What's wrong with you Christians?
Did your momma whack in you in the head with a bible so many times you became STUPID?
THE ICE CAPS ARE MELTING!
And YOU freaks are still blocking solutions at every turn.
There is a good blog about how when the global-warming induced food shortages hit people should eat FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS. They don't smoke, or have many STD's AND they are in large part to BLAME FOR THIS ECOLOGICAL DISASTER since it was uncovered how they put a Christian spy in NASA to block global warming info coming to and from scientists, and repeatedly, just for ONE!
We KNOW why you are doing this.
Reply-
0%
crespi1 year, 2 months ago
To fulfill your evil "end of the world prophecy" and create the "tribulations" you so desperately hope for. Instead of facing reality and helping to fix our problems you have chosen to subvert, lie, deny science, and mostly DENY all responsibility and pray you will be "taken away" when your destructive handywork comes to fruition. (You WON'T be. You can watch YOUR children starve, too. Only you will probably ENJOY it since it "proves prophecy.")
I have Christian pamphlets from 1982(!) screaming how their IS NO TEMPERATURE RISE. LIES. LIES. LIES. And FOR WHAT?
To follow the will of SATAN and destroy us all to feed your colossal egos?
Stop sabotaging the world you SATANIST F*cks!!!
Reply -
0%
newbie04201 year, 2 months ago
Speaking of stupid....
"An ice age is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in an expansion of continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Glaciologically, ice age is often used to mean a period of ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres; by this definition we are still in an ice age (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
Reply -
0%
newbie04201 year, 2 months ago
You mean tha caps that have been melting and growing back for the last 40 million years:
"The present ice age began 40 million years ago with the growth of an ice sheet in Antarctica. It intensified during the late Pliocene, around 3 million years ago, with the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere, and has continued in the Pleistocene. Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales. The most recent glacial period ended about ten thousand years ago."
Facts usually do much better then mindless rants when you want to win people over....
Reply
-
-
0%
simonsez1 year, 2 months ago
Thanks Zaph for posting this story. It was also featured on 20/20 last Friday.
I also have a video of the glacier continually breaking off in South America, an activity that has been going on for decades. It's a tourist attraction.
I believe the global warming fiasco is beginning to unravel, but it may take 4 or 5 years of average weather to kill it.
In the meantime, necessary or not, our autos will become more fuel efficient because of the cost of fuel.
That is the way change is supposed to happen ... not by government intervention.
Reply -
0%
IAmMine1 year, 2 months ago
Wow, a 5 second clip in a doc thats over an hour and a half. Next thing you'll know someone will notice the part where the greenhouse gases are trying to escape is a cartoon....
Reply -
0%
newbie04201 year, 2 months ago
A little more from:
http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/s33p36.htm
During the current period of recovery from the Little Ice Age, the U.S. climate has improved somewhat, with more rainfall, fewer tornados, and no increase in hurricane activity, as illustrated in Figures 7 to 10. Sea level has trended upward for the past 150 years at a rate of 7 inches per century, with 3 intermediate uptrends and 2 periods of no increase as shown in Figure 11. These features are confirmed by the glacier record as shown in Figure 12. If this trend continues as did that prior to the Medieval Climate Optimum, sea level would be expected to rise about 1 foot during the next 200 years.
As shown in Figures 2, 11, and 12, the trends in glacier shortening and sea level rise began a century before the 60-year 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use, and have not changed during that increase. Hydrocarbon use could not have caused these trends.
Reply-
0%
IAmMine1 year, 2 months ago
and a little more on the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine:
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oreg...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=480
Reply -
0%
quackpot1 year, 2 months ago
RE figures 2,11, and 12: when the shortening began does NOT negate the RAPID CURRENT rate of the shortening process. You might want to look at last week's issue of the scientific journal Nature.
Reply
-
-
0%
Charlson1 year, 2 months ago
The Arctic Ice Cap has stunk 20% since 1979 and at a rate of 9% a decade, there will be no Arctic Ice Cap by the turn of the century. But you global warming debunkers don't care, you won't be around to see it. You find trite crap to argue against global warming as if it contradicts what most of the reputable scientists in the world confirms.
And will this have detrimintal effects to our planet? For those who really are interested here's a link with some answers: http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp
Reply-
0%
newbie04201 year, 2 months ago
Do you know why Greenland got it's name?
Do you know they are finding man made mines and caves as the ice begins to melt there?
Maybe things are returning to a point they've already been?
Too much ice on Earth is a bad thing as it reflects solar radiation which leads to a further cooling of the planet.
Guess Al Gore didn't tell you that....
Reply
-
-
0%
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 2 months ago
He used a CGI-made clip of Arctic ice during an opening scene. The clip came from 'The Day After Tomorrow'.
It was not used as part of any evidence presented.
If you zoom in to the clip, you can see that one of the polar bears is holding a coke.
I am facinated by the people who argue that global warming is false, because it would cost to much to fix if it were true.
???
Reply-
0%
simonsez1 year, 2 months ago
We argue its false because we believe it is false. What other reason do we need.
Reply
-
-
0%
newbie04201 year, 2 months ago
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseActi...
Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. "I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical," "But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds," Evans wrote. "As Lord Keynes famously said, 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?'" he added.
Reply -
0%
newbie04201 year, 2 months ago
Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. "At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous 'global warming,' But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation." de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. "I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute," he added. "One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems.
Reply -
0%
newbie04201 year, 2 months ago
Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, "I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN's IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics." "After that, I changed my mind," Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book "Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma," with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause.
Reply -
0%
newbie04201 year, 2 months ago
Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. Patterson said his "conversion" happened following his research on "the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific." "It came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI," Patterson explained. "Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances," he wrote. "As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate," Patterson noted.
Reply -
0%
newbie04201 year, 2 months ago
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. "I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe," Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change." "However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol," Clark explained.
Reply -
0%
sonofjohn1 year, 2 months ago
"While Arctic temperatures have generally increased, there is some discussion over the temperatures over Greenland. First of all, Arctic temperatures are highly variable, making it difficult to discern clear trends at a local level. Also, until recently, an area in the North Atlantic including southern Greenland was one of the only areas in the world showing cooling rather than warming in recent decades, but this cooling has now been replaced by strong warming in the period 1979-2005.
So in reference to the last sentence what is your spin on this?
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.