Ghost of a flea: The Day After Tomorrow

April 23, 2004

The Day After Tomorrow

A movie for all your ecodisaster needs. Tech Central Station offers more on Frankenclime plots.

Our understanding of complex weather and climate patterns is still relatively poor, and today's computer models are too primitive to predict next year's climate -- much less the climate for 2050. That's why the models actually generate "scenarios," not predictions. Politicians, journalists and pressure groups can then select the scariest scenarios of the bunch, and trumpet them far and wide -- in an effort to "persuade" countries to adopt restrictive energy and economic policies. That's what they've been doing, and The Day After Tomorrow merely takes the tactic a step further.

And then... Canadian environmental fearmonger David Suzuki comments to the effect that only his "weirdo" climate change scenarios are to be taken seriously. Heaven forbid a worst case scenario worked up by the Pentagon have the same weight as a talking head for the CBC.

Posted by Ghost of a flea at April 23, 2004 07:44 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ghostofaflea.com/cgi-bin/mt/trackback-engine.cgi/10

Comments

A bit unfair to Dr. Suziki, Flea --- he tends to be fairly balanced where there is real science to fall expand on. While I can understand some steroetypical left-wing pentagon-bashing coming out of the rapidly falling credibility of administration-supported science in the US today, I don't think that is a fair assesment here.

The Pentagon made a worst case analysis using sloppy climate science (which is ok, this is supposed to be worst-case, right?); Hollywood picks it up, amplifies it a bit and makes a movie.

However, the movie is lent false weight by association with said Pentagon report. What is so surprising when a few (from many different labs, I might add, with varied backgrounds) climate scientists step up to say "not a likely scenario"?

Posted by: Jeremy Beam at April 23, 2004 09:42 PM