Disruption
Disruption opens with a serene archival footage, from Apollo 8 lunar mission, of the Earth rising over the horizon of the Moon before jumping sharply to modern images of extreme storms and the devastation faced in their aftermath. Cities lie in ruin, streets flooded and buildings aflame. "The world hasn't ended," title cards bleakly read. "But the world as we know it has."
Shot during the 100 days prior to the September 21, 2014 People's Climate March in New York City, the film serves as a cautionary countdown intended to motivate viewers to take action on the issue of climate change. The audience is taken inside the People's Climate Mobilization Hub, a New York office space where organizers and activists strive to set in motion the largest climate rally in history. Their primary objective is to capture the consideration of world leaders prior to a major UN climate meeting in order to draw worldwide attention to the existing and future threats of changing weather patterns.
Citing historical movements such as women's liberation and civil rights as major influences in the decision to facilitate a march, organizers share a unified belief in the power of people coming together in the interest of a common cause, even in the digital age. Experts on climate change, from authors and academics to scientists and community organizers, give viewers a history lesson on the topic at hand and make it clear that weather patterns are an issue of global concern. Interview subjects push to disempower big corporations such as oil companies and other resource-damaging operations, warning that the preservation of our natural resources is a long-term investment more valuable than any monetary sum.
At the end, the filmmakers issue a final call to action, encouraging those with environmental concerns to join their movement at a time when "the whole world will be watching." Featuring impressive cinematography paired with stock footage and impassioned testimonials, Disruption is both an eye-opening look at a grim future, as well as a motivational piece on how to improve that future.
Any SERIOUS discussion of climate or the overall weather without discussing the impacts of GeoEngineering or chemtrails is like banksters don't manipulate the financial markets. What separates people to a large extent? Information: (1) Those who refuse to review good information. (2) Those who believe the propaganda they are fed and need to believe in bad information lest their world view be shredded. (3) Those who seek out the truth apart from the media and govt, realizing the govt and media has been captured by those who don't have your best interests at heart(marxists and corporatists) and realizing doctors and scientists are no less devoid of the base characteristics of humans than attorneys and politicians, especially when their govt jobs and grants rely on a particular outcome.
You can review the govt documents providing for GeoEngineering and chemtrails at GeoEngineerigWatch.org What about electronic manipulation of the weather, the storm creators? One could start by reviewing Haarp.net Or do you refuse to review good information?
get off the oil, dumas
@mike m: Those who lap up propaganda like a cat to milk call people names rather than doing their homework. It makes them feel superior while showing everyone how lame they are; good job!
DustUp never said a thing about oil, just the weather manipulators and those like yourself who refuse to do their homework. Reading some of DU's other comments you would find big oil in disfavor; favors Nikola Tesla type technology to power the planet.
I think the finding about vibrations with the pyramids are a nice thought but more about a refreeze process. Has anyone seen a bottle of water taken out of a freezer just at the right temp, slap the bottom and see it freeze from liquid to a solid slush. Thunk this is what what being achieved.
Interesting that you mention the excretions of a large bovine animal there, Roy. Since animal agriculture contributes a huge amount of CO2, methane and acidification of the oceans. A needless contribution at that. Animal agriculture is certainly a man made industry so perhaps a light investigation into the water use, land use, cost to human health and lack of concern for the welfare of the animals involved before you even get around to the environmental impact would be worthwhile.
Not one comment regarding this factor? Bleak.
Funny you would mention this, as you probably know herds of millions of large herbivorous mammals have been a staple of Earth's ecosystems for the entire Quaternary epoch, yet only when humans started burning fossil fuels has this climatic debacle started. Yes, factory farming is an awful practice, but blaming the majority of our predicament on cow flatulence is, pardon the expression, bull****.
Climate change is real and a natural occurrence on Earth. Man made climate change is total bullshit. People who believe man made climate change is real is the enemy of mankind and should be eliminated from the gene pool.
leigh atkins has hit the nail on the head
climate change is in fact a hoax. its aim possibly is to allow the UN to establish a system of more explicit executive control within countries. it's all in line with the goals of, say, a new order of the world.
Oh and since we can't seem to edit, I forgot to add this;
How do we make these powerful psyco/sociopathic monsters care?
We take away their money (the only thing they do care about which is their power)!
Now think people - how DO we do that effectively?
Oh NOW the story line loads!
I didn't even bother to watch this one coz not only did it not have a blurb to tell you what you were about to watch but the comments seemed annoyed at the film's seemingly one-sidedness & the last frame said 'Join The Movement'.
But I do gotta ask, did it even show the presidents of all those foreign countries standing before the UN accusing the US military (& who knows who else) of climate manipulation, geoengineering & so-called 'weather warfare' by means of HAARP & chemical spraying whilst demanding an explanation, action & justice?
And besides, you can protest all you want but you must remember that the people you're protesting to/about have to ACTUALLY CARE in order for your protest to achieve anything, no matter how big - you could have 7 million people protesting all at once & if those in power don't like it or they become fearful or losing their power due to our sheer numbers, they just order their paid guns to turn us into tomato paste on the sidewalks. And I honestly think that these powerful people are such psyco/sociopathic monsters, that they'd do it in a heartbeat...
we will survive but we should try to leave this place a lil better for our future generations. If we can anything to help. we should devote our lives to doing so
the problem with judging if climate change is completely human caused or just human accelerated is that we started monitoring climate literally in the coldest year in the past thousand years.
i personally believe that climate change is only human accelerated, that the dark ages were warmer than even today (and theres evidence supporting that) and that this documentary is wrong.
one star.
Even if it is only being accelerated by humans, don't you think that would merit us doing something about it? Yah know, to at least slow our ultimate demise.
What demise? everything in nature moves in cycles. what makes you think that the global tempature is any different? it'll go up, then go down.
remember it was warmer than it is today in medeval times. humanity survived. we survived the little ice age and that was before we had developed the modern technologies that we have now! we will survive that too!
Calling for our "ultimate demise" is just fear mongering.
Taking the apathetic approach is the other extreme of radical environmentalism. Both are foolish.
With the fear mongering, you have a point but non action is pointless. Why not set out to change the path we are on? . What we put on land, goes to the sea and comes right back to us. We as a species are not living right
...people liked this documentary to judge from the rating...so I watched it. – I gave it five stars....it was just tiresome...it didn't move me...it didn't add one thing to my knowledge...about anything...I am sorry to say.
The problem is real...but those that see the problem for what it is, are just not equipped to promote or provide for a solution...for THEY do not understand the critical essence of "power"...
So they make themselves into an annoyance to "power"...and that just aint gonna cut it....
There IS only one thing that matters and that is the integrity of the biosphere...that was hinted at in this documentary, but I did not see a hint of anything that resembled a "solution"...
it really is just the math. we've hit over 30 tipping points. we've broken the jet stream. we're losing all our glacial ice and the oceans are rapidly acidifying.
there's too many of us living as we do in the developed world. this starts w/ too many privileged people, as those folks reproducing are the ones w/ the carbon footprints that require several earths to support. it ends with most or all of us being part of the 6th extinction that is in progress.
we can't 'call this back'. but...we could attempt to mitigate it for the sake of pockets of people and other life forms that might survive. but we need to train everyone on how to decommission nuclear plants. cuz it takes decades to shut those down and store all the waste. and try doing that using stone age tools.
If climate change is a "hoax" as many deniers state, what purpose does it serve? What's the goal of such a hoax? To scare people for no reason? To make money? Or is calling it a hoax simply a way of excusing ourselves from any responsibility to change the way we live; to begin wasting less, saving more and finding sustainable sources of clean energy, clean air, clean water and healthy food.
Well, there are several possible reasons that could make people deny (or to not buy) the global warming picture.
You've pretty much answered your own question "to change the way we live; to begin wasting less, saving more and finding sustainable sources of clean energy, clean air, clean water and
healthy food.", that's probably bothering some of those people. Some people want to keep driving their gasoline cars/motorbikes, some of them want to keep eating the same stuff and living like they want, they don't like to be told what to drive/eat/buy/do, etc. and they definitely don't want to pay for any "green measures". Also, we have to admit that some studies about global warming are pretty inconclusive, they don't prove that human CO2 emissions are responsible for temperature increase, and some of them may even point to a global cooling instead...that obviously generates detractors.
Personally, I don't doubt that CO2 of any kind will drive temperatures up, like it happens on Venus, but our planet is no stranger to climate change without the need of humans to be present, that's also a fact.
We need to (and we will, eventually) become a renewable energy based civilization, but we'll do this for our sake, not for the planet's.
It's funny to hear stuff like "we need to save the planet", what they should say instead is "we need to save humanity".
Humans have no serious power over our planet's climate, I mean, we are nothing in comparison to the Earth's climate system. We can easily get killed by insignificant stuff (from the planet's point of view) like hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, asteroid impacts, disease, etc.
The planet will be just fine and life on Earth will go on without us, as it always has. For instance, not even the hellish conditions of the Permian extinction period were able to eliminate life on Earth... therefore, nothing we can possibly do as a species will.
So quit saying "we need to save the planet", Earth has nothing to fear from us, say "we need to save ourselves" instead.
Thanks for your thoughtful and intelligent response. I agree with you wholeheartedly about "saving humanity" instead of "saving the planet." The Permian extinction showed just how resilient Earth – and life on it – really is.
They can and have determined how much of the c02 in the air is man made vs natural. The natural hydrocarbons in the atmosphere outnumber that of man made by 30, however are less harmful to the environment than what we make.
The opening was good but needed less focus on rally marching and more on what is happening in the Arctic. Fair effort but "The Day the Oceans Boiled " was much better. Reinforcing facts is far better than focusing on the emotional reactions to what is happening to the environment.
They addressed that. Everyone understands the facts, reinforcing them would be remedial. The urgency to get people emotionally invested has to be the new focus.
the documentary starts out with outdated data and some plain lies that sets the assumptions of the entire documentary. cherry picking the IPCC report, which clearly states there is no observable or statistically significant increase in meteorologic phenomenon. the drama of the storms comes mainly from the fact that people build houses where they shouldn't out of materials they shouldn't.
"the layer of stuff" graph fails to mention that the layer of stuff was in the atmosphere in the first place and the specific way is photosynthesis by plants which would love warmer more carbon rich climate.
ocean acidification implies the dilution of co2 in the seawater. which requires lower temperatures. the magic "40%" at the beginning of the movie is a lie because it is not 40% and it is not man made, is oceanic degas. becoming less acidic.
low income people of low income nations get hit all the time. because they are numerous and they don't have access to education thus are unable to identify zones where it is dangerous to live or if they do, because of economic reasons it's the only place to live. climate policies denies them access to cheap energy making them stay low income people FOREVER. some african nations are already suffering because of this.
probably marching on the streets with asphalt on top of it and an iPhone in the pocket wearing polymer shirt and shoes under a sign lit up by carbon power plants is not hypocrisy but implications of a shout can be dangerous.
I don't know man, the skies used to be more blue.
chem trails? ya think!?
your color sensitivity decreases as you age. take some pictures with a camera you used 20 years ago and analyze it. you should see a bit of dimming at higher humidity.
=) it might be chem trails. or .. wait. my fart contains those things at much higher concentrations. omfg - i am destroying the universe
money? money and LACK of education and access to cheap energy is what brings trouble to people getting hit with this oh, so 'normal weather' ?? oy.