Hollywood’s Fake Take on Global Warming

Published June 1, 2004

Is this what it has finally come down to? Rebuffed by science and ignored by the public, global warming alarmists are desperate enough for political relevance to trumpet second-rate Hollywood sensationalism as a “teachable moment” for the complex science of climate change.

This Friday’s release of The Day After Tomorrow has absolutely nothing to teach us about the science of global warming–even the most ardent global warming alarmists concede that. A superstorm pumped up on carbon dioxide like East German female Olympians pumped up on steroids will not engulf the globe. Tornadoes will not pound Los Angeles. Tidal waves will not destroy Manhattan. Subtropical Asia will not be buried by blizzards. It is a figment of Hollywood’s imagination.

Scare Tactics

So, too, is alarmist global warming theory a figment of the imagination.

Sure, you’ll hear the “teachable moment” slogan repeated ad nauseum by every alarmist-with-an-agenda from Al Gore to Captain Planet, but the The Day After Tomorrow is no more a teachable moment regarding the science of global warming than Independence Day (not surprisingly created by the same producer) was a teachable moment regarding astronomy or King Kong was a teachable moment regarding African biology.

What this film is, however, is a teachable moment regarding the playbook of environmental scare tactics. An impeachable moment, if you will.

When a heat wave occurs, the alarmists blame it on global warming. When a cold snap occurs, the alarmists blame this, too, on global warming. And if the weather never throws us a heat wave or a cold snap, then the alarmists will surely blame that, too, on global warming, as everybody knows the weather is always changing.

The alarmists incessantly chant the mantra, “an overwhelming consensus of scientists” agree human activity is causing significant global warming. But just who are these scientists? They never tell us.

This is probably because thousands of scientists worldwide–an overwhelming consensus, it could easily be argued–reject alarmist global warming theory. More than 17,000 of them, including dozens of Nobel laureates, have signed a petition saying no convincing scientific evidence supports the theory of catastrophic global warming. You can read the petition for yourself at http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm.

Hot as a Toaster?

And just what is the supposed evidence of global warming?

Computer models, whose programs are written by the global warming alarmists themselves, predictably foretell future warming. But those computer models cannot even reflect the present! According to the alarmist computer models, the planet should already be hot as a toaster, stuffed in a microwave oven, placed on a stovetop, and cooking in a sauna. If the alarmist models cannot predict the present, by what logic can they predict the future?

Polar ice caps, predicted to melt due to global warming (and, according to Hollywood’s “teachable moment,” triggering the next ice age), have neither grown nor shrunk during the many decades since man began tracking them.

Sea level has remained constant, oscillating only millimeters over the span of decades.

Ground-based temperature readings, which alarmists quote every year to back their claims that the planet is cooking, show no warming after corrections for the localized effect growing cities have on surrounding temperature readings. And satellites–which measure the entirety of the planet’s surface and are immune to the localized false warming indications of urban heat islands–show absolutely no global warming.

To the extent human-induced warming may occur in the future, the growing scientific evidence is that temperature change will be moderate; most of the modest warming will merely make the coldest of winter nights a little less cold; and higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (which plant life needs to thrive and survive) will lead to a greening of the planet that will greatly enhance global food production.

To be sure, there are some wonderful cinematic special effects in the first half of The Day After Tomorrow. But if you plan to see the movie and would prefer not to be insulted by kindergarten science, be sure to turn off your mind for a couple of hours and enjoy the movie for what it is: Hollywood fancy.

James M. Taylor is managing editor of Environment & Climate News. His email address is [email protected].