Subliminal Nonsense


The basic message of this film is fear. It is a left-wing enviromentalist fear mongering film and starts with the global warming alarmist approach and ends with an angry world fighting against mankind because of the big bad oil man.

This film is so heavy laden with global warming politics that is shamlessly uses that vehicle to tell a horror story. Yes its a rip-off of "The Shining" and "John Carpenters The Thing", but at least those films were good old fashioned sci-fi horror flicks that is worth the price of admission.

Stay away from this film... unless you are the type that is looking to re-inforce a delusional convenient lie.

reply

Actually, it is you who is delusional if you don't see how the oceans are warming and hurricanes are stronger than they have ever been. The film uses what is actually going on in the world and the result was a strong, low-budget horror film.

reply

OMG.... you have really bought the whole lie hook line and sinker. Stay in line lemming.

reply

No, I just did some research and see the facts. Off you go, jackass.

reply

Please educate me.. provide me with a list of resources you found that proves Anthropogenic Global Warming is occuring. Not just that fact that the world is warming since the last ice-age, but that Anthropogenic Global Warming is the cause of your concern.

.. now off you go and get me the resources..

reply

Only the stoopid deals in absolute.

Obi-Wan Kenobi

reply

I must say I agree with you completely, Onecanuck2001.

I'd like to see those resources your buddy over there tries to dig up. I need a good laugh today.

Nothing but complete conjecture. What we need are facts.

Cheers

reply

Can't wait to see you backpedal in a few more years when the effects of climate change become really, really evident on a personal-experience, not just in the distanced terms of news-report glacier reduction. Like, this is just some vicious rumor spread by the global scientific community? Dummy. Why shouldn't pollution gradually result in ozone depletion? What about that equation doesn't make sense to you? Or is it just (ahem) inconvenient?

reply

I meant "evident on a personal-experience basis...." Sorry for the agrammatical typo.

reply

Maybe it is true that we do not understand all the cycles at play in the biological and geographical ... but my opinion has always been that it makes bad sense to proceed without care. If you look at what the ulilization of coal did in England from hundreds of years ago ... the sickness of people in London went up for centuries, while their lifespans went down. Meanwhile the Hostmen of NewCastle of then, where like the OPEC of the time.

There is no point in destroying everything in our environment that can be made use of by someone with force ... why not protect the Earth and proceed with caution.

reply

i thought it was an enjoyable film...and why not put in the global warming aspect to it... you boring people always need to find something to bitch about...


and global warming is not caused by us ...but hell were not helping at all with all the *beep* we do...$$$$ the invisible hand...the countdown

reply

Are you talking to me or someone else?

reply

Look yourself. 97% of the scientific community believes in it for... you know... reasons. Those things science use. Those things you don't.

-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl

reply

When challenged on his original post, it's interesting to see the sudden insertion of "Anthropogenic" ("Man Made") into this guy's argument - which WASN'T Mentioned in his original post. Suddenly, his defence has changed to a straw man argument of epic proportions: As in "Oops, My original argument is fatally flawed, but perhaps if I quickly change my stated position and claim that this NEW position is what people are challenging ... just maybe, nobody will notice?" Too bad: we DID notice. You denied global warming, and then - when challenged - changed your argument to MAN MADE Global warming. completely different position, and NOT your original position - which was what you were challenged on.

That makes you either stupid, or intellectually dishonest.... or (quite possibly) both?

reply

Regardless of my own thoughts on the issue, I think you're the one who's being intellectually dishonest here. In the OP's defense, he used the terms "global warming alarmism" and "global warming politics" in his original post. To pretend that both of those terms somehow do not refer specifically to Anthropogenic Global Warming is intellectually dishonest. (I won't say stupid because I think you know exactly what you were doing.) The alarmists tell us humans must change our ways or disaster is nigh. The politicians want to implement policies to prevent humans from following what they consider to be destructive practices. Unless you're trying to tell us that you believe that politicians are considering passing laws ordering the Earth to stop getting warmer? You're latching on the fact that the OP didn't use "anthropogenic"--even though that's clearly what he meant--to refute the argument. That seems more disingenuous to me than what you're implying he did.

And I should point out that the oceans have actually cooled since 2003, despite silvergoss's claims to the contrary:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

And a number of scientists, including William Gray, a meteorologist at CSU, have argued that the recent upswing in hurricanes is likely a result of naturally occurring multi-decadal Atlantic Ocean circulation variations, not global warming.

http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/2006/sep2006/
(from section 5)
"There have been similar past periods (1940s-1950s) when the Atlantic was just as active as in recent years. For instance, when we compare Atlantic basin hurricane numbers over the 15-year period (1990-2004) with an earlier 15-year period (1950-1964), we see no difference in hurricane frequency or intensity even though the global surface temperatures were cooler and there was a general global cooling during 1950-1964 as compared with global warming during 1990-2004," he said. "We have no plausible physical reasons for believing that Atlantic hurricane frequency or intensity will change significantly if global ocean temperatures continue to rise."

reply

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has already done this. There are reams of data that support the conclusion that natural climate change has been adversely affected through negative human influence. This data has been available for years. Perhaps you should start reading.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

reply

If you're going to start reading, I'd start somewhere else. The IPCC is a joke. It's primarily a political body (hence the term intergovernmental) rather than a scientific one. True, there are some scientists on the panel, but many of them, including Vice Chair Yuri Izrael, have spoken out against IPCC reports, claiming the panel distorts or cherry-picks data. The US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works links to a 2008 report in which 650 world scientists, many of whom are current or former IPCC scientists, criticize overblown climate claims made by the IPCC.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

That may not seem like a large number of scientists but it's more than 12 times the 52 scientists involved in the 2007 IPCC summary. (On the other hand, diplomats from over 115 countries also contributed to the summary.)

reply

Actually, the IPCC is an excellent place to start reading, as long as you don't stop thinking after visiting the link you provided.

First, shame on you for making it seem as if the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works refutes the concept of man-made global warming. The Committee does not. The link you provided leads to an artical written by a partisan Blogger named Mark Morano, and was paid for by Senator Inhofe's office. Senator Inhofe is famed for his assertion (before the IPCC report came out, and before much of the current trending and data was known) that global warming was the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Obviously, Inhofe has a clear bias, not the US Senate Committee.

Second, Senator Inhofe's list of dissenting "scientists" is the real joke. I put the word scientists in quotes because many of those presented in Inhofe's list are not legitimate climate scientists. Some are economists, and many are TV weathermen, one of which concludes that global warming MUST be a myth because God wouldn't allow global warming to happen! A much larger group have no background in climate science at all, and another, separate, large percentage are finacially dependant on fossil fuel companies, or think-tanks associated with those same companies. Here's a link that busts open Inhofe's original 400 dissenting "scientists":

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-47011101

But the worst example of the kind of dissent Inhofe presents are the handful of experts who claim they were quoted out of context, and actually DO support the conclusion of the IPCC, as well as one expert who says he was outright tricked into signing the letter of dissent.

Really, if that's the peg on which you want to rest your hat, you're welcome to it.

For those interested in a true scientific perspective, from true climate experts, should refer themselves to the 50,000 member American Geophysical Union (http://www.agu.org/) and their opinion on whether man made global warming is a reality, or a myth:

“Many components of the climate system - including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons - are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained [by the increase in greenhouse gas emissions] generated by human activity during the 20th Century.”


http://www.aip.org/fyi/2008/014.html

It's not enough to read. You have to research a bit.

reply

[deleted]

Here you go:

Scientific Consensus on Anthropogenic Climate Change

A comprehensive analysis of peer-reviewed articles on the topic of global warming and climate change has revealed an overwhelming consensus among scientists that recent warming is human-caused.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130515203048.htm

reply

No since discussing anything with you as you only parrot back what Lush Windbag has told you instead of checking any credible sources.

reply

I realize I'm 7 years late with this, but Lemmings don't actually commit suicide. That's a myth. Also, the message isn't subliminal when it is conveyed to the audience openly and honestly. You may disagree with the message but there is nothing hidden about this at all.

If you need drugs to be a good writer, you’re not a good writer-Rod Serling

reply

hurricanes are stronger than they have ever been.
That's factually not true.

reply

I thought it was a good, not perfect movie. It is not a rip-off of "The Thing" or "The Shining", but it resembles "The Twelve Months of the Summer" very much (which is much better, no cheesy animations)

reply

What´s wrong with the OP, does he really think that way? I guess he just ran out of friends and is just teasing everybody. It is like saying that a mcdonalds burguer with fries (extra large) is an excellent meal, and then saying: prove me wrong.

reply

and slasher movies are against pre marital sex and drugs?

reply

[deleted]

Conservatives making fun of liberals for using fear and drinking the kool-aid. What is this? Bizarro world? Funny.

When have conservatives ever been right on matters of science? It's always protect the corporate / church / religion / monarchy interests over new scientific discoveries, think cigarettes companies, aids, segregation, all the way to persecuting Darwin and Galileo when they could get away with obscurantism. Not anymore. Conservative propaganda doesn't stick like it used to, as made evident by the last election.

reply

Bask while you can...

reply

Hey Oceaneunick, ewe must be a big stock holder in a foundering oil empire. Either that or a true unbeliever!

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

reply

Neither, just not brain washed by the liberal media. In other words, I am just not weak minded.

reply

Yeah, keep telling yourself you're not weak minded, and keep repeating the myth of the liberal media. You're a real thinker, you are! BWAHAHAHA.

Where do you get your talking points - the embarrasing Faux Snooze, or radio comedian Rush Limbaugh?

reply

Can you imagine if we had listened to the liberals who tried back in the 70's to use 'environmentalism' as a too to reduce America's standing by screaming 'global cooling' and insisting we shoot all sorts of things into the atmosphere and stratosphere to 'help' the sun bring in MORE warmth?

What if we had listened to you then?
Wrong then, but no matter how much data-hiding or manipulating-THIS time youre 100% sure? Sure enough to do things that could force the planet, our seasons, and everything we know into something totally unacceptable?

Many of us see it as what it is: a tool. A tool, like your welfare-programs that have destroyed the black family, to drive as many little nails into America and see it fall, then we'll embrace your 'Brave New World' of liberal lunacy. Right?

No wonder the true enemies of America are working so hard to remove guns from the citizens. Not easy to hide whats behind that curtain for too long since liberals have no principles to guide them. Nothing but hatred and contempt for all those stupid proles not 'intellectual' enough to think just. like. them...

reply

Global cooling is a myth. It was not a popular topic in the 1970s. It was something that showed up in a few fearmongering news articles, and was not the consensus of the scientific community.

Nice try. Sad, sad try.

-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl

reply

I don't consider myself liberal or conservative. I typically try to avoid politics

I thought this was an excellent film. Whether one believes in global warming or not, it should be clear to people that we are destroying the earth in multiple ways, every day.

~Spirit desire, spirit desire, we will fall.~

reply

And in every way destroying ourselves as well. But I thought the film, while meaning well, didn't quite deliver.

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

reply

I agree with GeneticSugar.

Regardless if you are a climate-change denier or believer, nobody can reasonably dispute that man made technology is causing damage to the environment.

Furthermore, it would be reasonable to believe that it can't hurt to make efforts to reduce our carbon footprint. How can responsible recylcing techniques, or driving an ultra low emissions vehicle be detrimental to our environment? How can reducing your consumptions of petrol products and other chemical substances in every day life have a negative impact on your health?

Is the OP suggesting the world has unlimited resources and at the current rates of consumption, we'll never deplete them? If world population continues to expand, along with our consumption, will the environment just accomodate us?

I'm not trying to provoke an argument, I'm sincerely interested what the OP believes so I can try to understand his viewpoint better. I understand that the denial group believes there's no hard evidence to support climate change theories, but I'm not sure I understand how they justify not supporting a pro active approach to reducing overall carbon footprint(s).

reply

Left-wing, right-wing, liberal, conservative...I'm not interested in those aspects. All I have to do is walk outside to see absolute evidence of global warming. I remember winters as a child (I'm 48), and they were definitely colder and much longer. I remember eating icicles (sp?), actually needing a winter coat, and having to wrap the pipes outside for weeks at a time. It's been 12 years since I've seen an icicle, and that was just because we had an ice storm in early January, when my first grandson was born. The winters here (Louisiana) now can barely be called winter, and the summers are horrendous. It's gotten to where the kids can't play outside during the middle of the day, and when I was young, we spent all day every day of the summer outside.
So, OP, you can believe what's convenient for you, but when you pull your head out of uhhhhmmm...the sand, you're going to be in for a big surprise.
Any movie that makes us think twice about continuing to use fossil fuels shouldn't be bashed just for that. It's just a part of the movie; there's a lot more to it.


You know the sound of wind rushing through treetops? That's my signature.

reply