DenialDepot: Jaws: A movie review

Check out an hilarious post from Denial Depot where he applies a keen sense of climate skepticism to the movie Jaws. Here is his synopsis, to whet your appetite:

A group of so-called government funded “experts” whip up alarmist fears of a killer shark off the coast of Amity, a sea side town. Their goal is to destroy the local tourist industry, send Amity back to the dark ages and thus achieve their underlying socialist agenda of wealth redistribution. The heroes of this tale are the local major and business leaders who lead a successful audit of the alarmist claims and by doing so manage to delay action long enough that the beach remains open. In the end it turns out a shark has been eating people.

A few other gems:

Another dead body is found. Yawn. Of course the alarmism hits the roof and the “shark theory” goes public. The Mayor wisely holds a council meeting, kind of like a congressional hearing, and invites all the local business leaders.

Even if there IS a shark, is mitigating the problem by closing the beach really the correct solution? Can’t bathers just adapt to a killer shark? Not that we are conceding ground on the existence of the shark yet.


Matt Hooper from the “Oceanographic Institute” turns up. No-one seems to have called him, he just kind of appears. I’ve heard that scientists can actually smell sources of funding from up to 50 kilometers away. Hooper takes one look at the body and arrogantly proclaims:
“It wasn’t an ‘accident,’ it wasn’t a boat propeller, or a coral reef, or Jack the Ripper. It was a shark.”

What alarmist nonsense! He just blew through all those equally good explanations.

Do read the whole thing!

One thought on “DenialDepot: Jaws: A movie review

  1. Yeah, that was awesome. One anonymous comment issued was something like: “So people swimming is making sharks bigger and more aggressive, therefore we should stop people from swimming.” That actually made me think (no mean feat). I believe the commenter was being critical of those who would demand carbon emission reductions, but I believe this clever criticism to be misplaced. I think the main (serious) point of the review (and indeed of Denial Depot) is to say that the public should get the best information rather than a bunch of noise from AGW-deniers. This is separate from whether or not the beach should be closed (CO2 emissions should be restricted). But I’m still thinking about it, and it’s tough.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s