What a great movie plot idea...

[ehrnst]

[randome]

1. The screenplay practically writes itself!

Because you can dispense with motive and evil doers. Think how much time that saves!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[n2doc]

2. Nobody would believe it

too contrived.

[Martin Eden]

3. Life sometimes imitates art ...

... but that's a little too far-fetched.

[tclambert]

4. And a former Vice President masterminds the whole hoax in order to profit his windmill business.

But a suspicious Senator from Oklahoma refuses to fall for the plot. With the help of some former tobacco company scientists, and the financial backing of a couple of billionaire siblings, they expose the deception and launch a counter-attack that saves the world from alternative energy tycoons. Then they outlaw electric cars and unleaded gas, triggering a new age of prosperity, leading to a Star Trek-like future, except with diesel-powered starships.

[yallerdawg]

5. Sounds a lot like...

Michael Crichton's "State of Fear."

[fleabiscuit]

6. LOL, Yes! N/T

[DirkGently]

7. Well, the novelization has already been written.

State of Fear is a 2004 techno-thriller novel by Michael Crichton in which eco-terrorists plot mass murder to publicize the danger of global warming. Despite being a work of fiction, the book contains many graphs and footnotes, two appendices, and a twenty-page bibliography in support of Crichton's beliefs about global warming. Most climate scientists dispute Crichton's science as being error-filled and distorted,[1][2][3][4][5][6] and it was described as "pure porn for global warming deniers" by one skeptical science journalist. [7] The main villains in the plot are environmental extremists. Crichton does place blame on "industry" in both the plot line and the appendices. Various assertions appear in the book, for example:

The science behind global warming is speculative and incomplete, meaning no concrete conclusions can be drawn regarding human involvement in climate change.

Elites in various fields use either real or artificial crises to maintain the existing social order, misusing the "science" behind global warming. As a result of potential conflicts of interest, the scientists conducting research on topics related to global warming may subtly change their findings to bring them in line with their funding sources. Since climatology can not incorporate double-blind studies, as are routine in other sciences, and climate scientists set experiment parameters, perform experiments within the parameters they have set, and analyze the resulting data, a phenomenon known as "bias" is offered as the most benign reason for climate science being so inaccurate.

A key concept, delivered from the eccentric Professor Hoffman, suggests, in Hoffman's words, the existence of a "politico-legal-media" complex, comparable to the "military industrial complex," of the Cold War era. Hoffman insists climate science began using more extreme, fear-inducing terms such as "crisis," "catastrophe," and, "disaster," shortly after the fall of The Berlin Wall, in order to maintain a level of fear in citizens, for the purpose of social control, since the specter of Soviet Communism was gone. This "state of fear" gives the book its title.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear