I don't mind them taking up the issue, since it arguably one of the bigger scientific issues of our day in terms of coverage by the popular press, but I share RB's revulsion for the heavy dogma. Some earlier episodes lauded the individuals that risked their lives and reputation to challenge the dogma of their times, and then that one episode was devoted to indoctrinating viewers in today's trendy dogma. Sheesh.

 

... Some earlier episodes lauded the individuals that risked their lives and reputation to challenge the dogma of their times, and then that one episode was devoted to indoctrinating viewers in today's trendy dogma. Sheesh.

Yeah. And it's not just the fashionable dogma, its the "shock value" projections.

Like "Wow! Look how really really really bad this is, because THIS is going to happen!"

Is that really science? It's more like a science fiction disaster scenario to wow the audience.

Or those (unfortunately common) "science documentaries" looking at what might happen if a super earthquake separated California for the mainland, or if a super volcano filled the entire atmosphere with ash etc.

Are the public so stupid they need some incredible (ie NOT credible) disaster scenario blown all out of proportion to hold their interest, or they get bored and change the channel to WWF Smackdown?

I just expect something better from a show that is suppoosed to be a real science show. Maybe intelligent open minded people make up far too small a percentage of the possible viewers?

 

A parallel episode could easily be prepared to "sell" the many predicted benefits of global warming, as opposed to selling the status quo. More productive agriculture, newly arable land towards the poles, and there are many other potential positives. People would be frustrated that it isn't coming sooner. Sure there will be negatives, but it's not remotely balanced coverage when you focus only the most dire predictions and completely ignore the likely positives. That exposes the fact that you have an agenda that isn't about science.

 

Interesting point, but does the Cosmos show have an agenda in that regard, or are they just jumping on the bandwagon?

My suspicion is that they are just jumping on the bandwagon, getting max value from the "shock factor" to wow and thrill the audience. Science shows like to find some "wow" to keep an audience interested, that's fair enough. I'm just not keen on how it was done, ie; how the "wow" was presented like it was hard fact.

 

My suspicion is that they are just jumping on the bandwagon...

No question. It's the easy out. They likewise spent zero time noting that there are alternatives to the expanding universe theory, except to admit that dark energy is hard to find.

 

Another great online physics resource. http://www.learner.org/courses/physics/unit/intro.html

Physics for the 21st Century was designed for adult learners, including high school teachers, undergraduates, and the interested public—college graduates who were non-science majors. For teachers, the course will look at advances in physics that have occurred since they took their college physics classes. For adult learners, it will help them appreciate cutting edge advances in physics research and their potential impact on everyday life. The goal of the course is to make accessible the most important unanswered questions of our time that are being investigated in a variety of areas of contemporary physics.