Decades Away or The Day After Tomorrow?: Rhetoric, Film, and the Global Warming Debate

Critical Studies in Media Communication

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 7-26

  von Burg, Ron ^a  

^a CHRISTOPHER NEWPORT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Film; Global warming; Rhetoric of science; Science fiction; The Day After Tomorrow

Indexed keywords

EID: 84860347345     PISSN: 15295036     EISSN: 14795809     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15295036.2011.637221     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Alley, R.B., Marotzke, J., Nordhaus, W.D., Overpeck, J.T., Peteet, D.M.Pielke, R.A. 2003. Review: Abrupt climate change. Science, 299: 2005-2010.
2. Barollier, P. 2004, May 26. Disaster flick puts spotlight on global warming. iafrica.com. Retrieved fromhttp://entertainment.iafrica.com/features/324967.htm
3. Booth, W. 2004, May 27. Turning up the hype. Washington Post, p. C1.
4. Bowles, S. 2004, May 26. The Day After Tomorrow heats up a political debate. USA Today, pp. 1A-2A.
5. Bowles, S., & Vergano, D. 2004, May 26. Killer weather, or not? USA Today, p. 8D.
6. Boykoff, M. 2007. Flogging a dead norm? Media coverage of anthropogenic climate change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006. Area, 39(4): 470-481.
7. Boykoff, M.T. and Boykoff, J.M. 2004. Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14: 125-136.
8. Bridges, A. 2004, May 4. Scientists embrace plot for The Day After Tomorrow. Retrieved fromhttp://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-05-04-day-after-next-debate_x.htm
9. Brooks, D. 2004 April 20. Clearing the air. New York Times, p. A19.
10. Calvin, W.H. 1998. The great climate flip-flop. Atlantic Monthly, 281(1): 47-60.
11. Ceccarelli, L. 2001a. Rhetorical criticism and the rhetoric of science. Western Journal of Communication, 65(3): 314-329.
12. Ceccarelli, L. 2001b. Shaping science with rhetoric: The cases of Dobzhansky, Schrèodinger, and Wilson, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13. Cohen, M.J. 2004. George W. Bush and the Environmental Protection Agency: A midterm appraisal. Society and Natural Resources, 17: 69-88.
14. Corbett, J.B. and Durfee, J.L. 2004. Testing public (un)certainty of science: Media representations of global warming. Science Communication, 26(2): 129-151.
15. Coren, M. 2004, May 28. Climate flick favors fantasy over fact. CNN.com. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/05/27/weather.movie/
16. Cowing, K. 2004, April 25. New York Times fans global warming film controversy with NASA memos. Spaceref.com. Retrieved fromhttp://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=949
17. Driessen, P.K. 2004, April 22. The day after The Day After Tomorrow. TCS Daily. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=63
18. Evans, W. and Priest, S.H. 1995. Science content and social context. Public Understanding of Science, 4: 327-340.
19. Frank, S. 2003. Reel reality: Science consultants in Hollywood. Science as Culture, 12(4): 427-469.
20. Gieryn, T.F. 1999. Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21. Goodnight, G.T. 2005. Science and technology controversy: A rationale for inquiry. Argumentation and Advocacy, 42: 26-29.
22. Greenpeace International. 2004, May 24. Big screen vs. big oil. Retrieved fromhttp://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/the-day-after-tomorrow/
23. Gregory, J. and Miller, S. 1998. Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility, Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
24. Griscom, A. 2004, June 5. Not The Day After Tomorrow. Salon.com. Retrieved fromhttp://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/06/05/globalwarm/print.html
25. Hager, R. 2004 May 27. The science and fiction of The Day After Tomorrow. MSNBC.com. Retrieved fromhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5058474/
26. Hart, P.S. and Leiserowitz, A.A. 2009. Finding the teachable moment: An analysis of information-seeking behavior on global warming related websites during the release of The Day After Tomorrow. Environmental Communication, 3(3): 355-366.
27. Hilgartner, S. 1990. The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20(3): 519-539.
28. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Jasanoff, S. 1987. Contested boundaries in policy-relevant studies. Social Studies of Science, 17: 195-230.
30. Kirby, A. 2004, May 12. Climate film 'flawed but useful'. BBC Online. Retrieved October 30, 2011, fromhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3707873.stm.
31. Kirby, D.A. 2003a. Science advisors, representation, and Hollywood films. Molecular Interventions, 3(2): 54-60.
32. Kirby, D.A. 2003b. Science consultants, fictional films, and scientific practice. Social Studies of Science, 33(2): 231-268.
33. Latour, B. 2002. Science in action, 10th ed, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34. Leiserowitz, A. 2004. Before and after The Day After Tomorrow: A study of climate change risk perception. Environment, 46(9): 22-37.
35. Leiserowitz, A. 2006. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change, 77(1-2): 45-72.
36. Lovgren, S. 2004, May 18. Day After Tomorrow: Could ice age occur overnight? National Geographic News. Retrieved fromhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/05/0518_040518_dayafter.html
37. Lowe, T. 2006. Is this climate porn?: How does climate change communication affect our perceptions and behaviour? Retrieved fromhttp://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/twp98.pdf
38. Lowe, T., Brown, K., Dessai, S., de Franca Doria, M., Haynes, K. and Vincent, K. 2006. Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perception of climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 15: 435-457.
39. Lyne, J. 2005. Science controversy, common sense, and the third culture. Argumentation and Advocacy, 42: 38-42.
40. Mahone, G. 2004, April 26. NASA notice to all employees regarding media reports about the film "The Day After Tomorrow." Spaceref.com. Retrieved fromhttp://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=12673
41. McKibben, B. 2004, May 4. The big picture: Climate change too slow for Hollywood, too fast for the rest of us. Grist Magazine. Retrieved fromhttp://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2004/05/04/mckibben-climate/
42. Mellor, F. 2009. The politics of accuracy in judging global warming films. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 3(2): 134-150.
43. Merton, R.K. 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
44. Michaels, P.J. 2004a, May 16. Apocalypse soon? No, but this movie (and Democrats) hope you'll think so. The Washington Post, p. B1.
45. Michaels, P.J. 2004b, May 24. Day After Tomorrow: A lot of hot air. USA Today. Retrieved fromhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-05-24-michaels_x.htm
46. Mooney, C. 2005. The Republican war on science, New York, NY: Basic Book.
47. Morano, M. 2004, May 12. Gore warns of "climate emergency" while promoting disaster film. CNSnews.com. Retrieved fromhttp://www.crosswalk.com/1262238/
48. Moser, S.C. and Dilling, L. 2004. Making climate hot: Communicating the urgency and challenge of global climate change. Environment, 46(10): 32-46.
49. MoveOn.org. 2004. Global warming isn't just a movie. It's your future. Retrieved fromhttp://civic.moveon.org/climatecrisis//climate-resources.html
50. National Snow and Ice Data Center. 2004. " The Day After Tomorrow" q & a response. Retrieved fromhttp://nsidc.org/news/press/day_after/
51. Nelkin, D. 1987. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology, New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.
52. Nisbet, M. 2004, June 16. Evaluating the impact of The Day After Tomorrow: Can a blockbuster film shape the public's understanding of a science controversy? CSICOP On-Line: Science and the Media. Retrieved fromhttp://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/evaluating_the_impact_of_the_day_after_tomorrow/
53. Olson, K.M. and Goodnight, G.T. 1994. Entanglements of consumption, cruelty, privacy, and fashion: The social controversy over fur. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 80(3): 249-276.
54. Paroske, M. 2009. Deliberating international science policy controversies: Uncertainty and AIDS in South Africa. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 95(2): 148-170.
55. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2004. The Day After Tomorrow: Could it really happen? Retrieved fromhttp://www.pewclimate.org/dayaftertomorrow.cfm
56. Prelli, L. 1997. "The rhetorical construction of scientific ethos". In Landmark essays on the rhetoric of science: Case studies, Edited by: Harris, R.A. 87-104. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
57. Revkin, A.C. 2004, April 25. NASA curbs comments on ice age disaster movie. The New York Times. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/25/us/nasa-curbs-comments-on-ice-age-disaster-movie.html
58. Schwartz, P., & Randall, D. 2003. An abrupt climate change scenario and its implications for United States national security. Retrieved fromhttp://www.edf.org/documents/3566_AbruptClimateChange.pdf
59. Sennott, S. 2004, May 26. We have to think of the future. Newsweek. Retrieved fromhttp://www.newsweek.com/id/105165?tid=relatedcl
60. Shulman, S. 2006. Undermining science: Suppression and distortion in the Bush administration, Berkeley: University of California Press.
61. Sibbald, V. 2004, May 29. Director takes disaster seriously. The Press-Enterprise. Retrieved fromhttp://www.pe.com/entertainment/stories/PE_Fea_Ent_dayafter30.e37d.html
62. Silverstone, R. 1991. Communicating science to the public. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(1): 106-110.
63. Taylor, C.A. 1996. Defining science: A rhetoric of demarcation, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
64. Ton, T. 2004, December 29. Is The Day After Tomorrow coming? The Epoch Times. Retrieved fromhttp://www.theepochtimes.com/news/4-12-29/25286.html
65. Union of Concerned Scientists. 2004, July 9. Abrupt climate change. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/abrupt-climate-change.html
66. Vancheri, B. 2004, May 27. With spectacular effects and multiple catastrophes, Day After Tomorrow updates a classic genre. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, pp. C1-C2.
67. Waxman, H.A. 2003. Politics and science in the Bush administration: The United States House of Representatives-Committee on Government Reform. Retrieved fromhttp://it.stlawu.edu/~vleh/Bush%20Politics%20Science.pdf
68. Weaver, A.J., & Hillaire-Marcel, C. 2004, April 16. Global warming and the next ice age. Science, 304, 400-402.
69. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. 2004, June 1. What's after the day after tomorrow? Retrieved fromhttp://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=9948
70. Wynne, B. 1992. Public understanding of science research: New horizons or hall of mirrors?. Public Understanding of Science, 1: 37-43.
71. Wynne, B.E. 1995. "The public understanding of science". In Handbook of science and technology, Edited by: Jasanoff, S., Markle, G.E., Peterson, J.C. and Pinch, T. 361-388. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
72. Ziman, J. 2000. Real science: What it is, and what it means, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.