A new Cosmos

Here’s something to look forward to. Next year a new version of the classic series Cosmos will be available. The trailer below gives and idea of its likely quality – watch it full screen. the quality is great.

Official Trailer from Comic-Con | COSMOS|

Phil Plait, writing on the Bad Astronomy blog, gives his view on what the series may be like (see Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey: Carl Sagan’s show updated with Neil Tyson).

It will be called Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey. Hosted by renowned astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and writers Ann Druyan (Carl Sagan’s widow) and  Steven Soter. The executive producers are Seth MacFarlane and Ann Druyan.

Phil Plait warns agains prejudging a show a show only on the evidence of the trailer but feels it will be successful. And needed. Sagan’s original series, while still very effective, need updating to use new media and knowledge. Also, there is need for more pro-science public media which can help counter current anti-science and pseudoscience attitudes. As Plait says:

“We live in a time when the denial of reality is as prevalent (or more) than the acceptance of it. Much of that denial comes from a provincial view of the Universe, a narrowly constrained frame of mind that not just disallows but actively discourages doubt, questions, exploration, and freedom of discovery. The original Cosmos was all about those things, and not in a dry, documentary style, but from a very human viewpoint. This is why Cosmos endures, and why it needs to continue for a new generation.”

Similar articles

20 responses to “A new Cosmos

  1. Joe 'Blondie' Manco

    Heard about this a while back, glad to see it’s becoming a reality. I still re-watch the Sagan series every few years.

    Like

  2. i am a bit ‘skeptical’ of anything this site ‘recommends’ – given the complete failure on so called ‘climate science’ i have seen’read here. could you tell us why all the other planets in the solar system have been experiencing climate change before we move onto the next ‘big idea’? is it ‘man made’? actually, let me give you a clue – “solar” system

    Like

  3. Rational Wiki !!? Cedric..hell, I didn’t know such a place existed.So we can get all our climate science from ordinary wiki, and now go to rational wiki for enlightenment and understanding on literally everything…all problems..all knowledge..all understanding .; just get out the computer and rational wiki will sort it. Wow, I didn’t realise the power of machines to turn me into a vegetable. Mind you, Michael Mann looks a bit like a turnip.

    Like

  4. James, I have to say that if you’re referring to something as a “so-called science,” you’re on very shaky ground. Considering the volume of peer-reviewed literature on the topic, climate science would certainly seem to be a science to any unbiased observer. Contrast the seriously low volume of peer-reviewed literature which in any way contradicts the science, and the not-a-science claim looks downright nonsensical.

    Now, if your side is incapable of mustering a credible scientific argument (that is, something which passes peer review and stands up to subsequent scrutiny), you’ll forgive me if I am decidedly unimpressed by their efforts to achieve through propaganda what they are unable to through reasoned discourse.

    Like

  5. Also, might I just say how very depressing it is that there are people who respond to an announcement that there will be an updated version of one of the great classic science programmes by taking the opportunity to sneer at climate science.

    Like

  6. So we can get all our climate science from ordinary wiki…

    Huh? Who did that?

    (…awkward silence…)

    Mack, have you ever heard of…NASA? The people that launch rockets and have satellites and supercomputers?
    How about NOAA?
    Or the AAAS?
    Or the American Physical Society?
    Or the Royal Society?
    Or any and every single scientific community on the planet?
    No?
    Ah, that’s very sad.
    I mention NASA every chance I get. I dwell on it. Over the last week, I’ve probably mentioned NASA’s climate change website at least a dozen times.
    It’s NASA for breakfast, NASA for lunch and NASA for tea.
    NASA all the time and every time and three times on Sunday

    Yet you have this cock-eyed idea that I (or maybes someone else) gets their science from Rational Wiki.
    No, Mack. No. Bad Mack.

    Say it with me slowly…N…A…S…A.
    (Once more for the heck of it? What a good idea!)
    N…A…S…A.

    NASA | Projected U.S. Precipitation Changes by 2100

    Like

  7. Settle down there Cedric baby, Your blathering rants are worse than a parrot on steroids…NASA ! you say? Well here’s the latest from NASA…
    http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/05/global-warming-debunked-nasa-report-verifies-carbon-dioxide-actually-cools-atmosphere.html
    CO2 cools the planet Cedric..observed in that place of physical paradox called the thermosphere. Get with the programme.

    Like

  8. No.
    You are not getting this.
    NASA has a website.
    It’s in English. It’s free,
    If I want to find out “the latest from NASA” then I’ll go to…um….NASA?
    Yep, NASA.
    Say it with me slowly….N….A….S…A.
    I’ll check out the NASA website directly.
    I don’t need middlemen. I’m too smart for that.
    Want to know something about NASA? Why gosh, I’ll check out the NASA website that NASA is in charge of.
    Simple, yeah?

    The Carbon Crisis in 90 Seconds.

    Like

  9. Mack, I don’t don’t think you quite grasp how CO2 works. Unsurprising, considering you seem to be getting your version of what NASA says from somebody other than NASA.

    In fact, judging by the other articles on your source site, if this is a primary source of information for you, then I shudder to think what crazy stuff you’ve been taken in by. Seriously. Look at some of those articles, and explain to me why, in the name of all that is holy, you would try and pawn off their “analysis” of NASA’s work on anybody.

    Why don’t you take a step back, read the original article (which, at least, they had the decency to link to), as opposed to the ravings of a conspiracy theorist, and then ask questions if you still don’t understand.
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

    Like

  10. Yes thanks Chris B , That link direct to NASA you provided was the one I was looking for, but in the end couldn’t be fagged as I was dealing with Cedric NFQ Katesby . You might have missed where I was coming from here.. get back if you’ve any questions …. Yes Ken, the “crappy fraudulent science” is the whole damn “CO2 forcing”, “enhanced greenhouse effect”,”backradiation” “greenhouse gases” AGW…the lot…..First read this..http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/a-simple-model-of-global-average-surface-temperature/#comment-77341 Then this…http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-78670

    Like

  11. First read…

    No.
    I don’t get my science information from just anywhere.
    Too much shit out there on the blogosphere.
    I’m smart.
    You? Not so much.
    NASA.
    Say it with me slowly. N…A…S…A.
    Remember now?
    NASA does the work. They get my attention.
    NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    No exceptions.
    Some no-name blog recommended by some no-name like you?
    Um…..no.
    That would be stupid.
    NASA.
    Say it with me slowly.
    N…..A….S…A.
    You have nothing in comparison.

    NASA: Climate Change; A Warming World (HD)

    Like

  12. Mack, perhaps you might do me the courtesy of spelling out your thoughts, in straightforward terms, rather than linking me to previous ongoing discussions on the topic in the past.

    I must say that I am concerned that you felt you could spend the time tracking down and linking to a conspiracy website, but not to the NASA page, particularly considering that it was linked to from the conspiracy page.

    I did some brief investigation of the one “academic” source (Nasif S. Nahle) you cited to justify your statements about CO2 and greenhouse gases. You can imagine my surprise when the first hit was a commentary in response to your having cited him in the past:
    http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.co.nz/2012/10/nasif-s-nahle-google-scholar-and.html

    Again, if this is where you have been getting your “science,” it is no wonder that you seem to be confused about whether CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas.

    Like

  13. You can imagine my surprise when the first hit was a commentary in response to your having cited him in the past:…

    Ouch.
    That will leave a mark.

    Like

  14. Chris.. My confrontation and enlightening of Citizens Challenge over at the Yale Forum of Climate Change and The Media was some time in the past and I’ve wiped it off my favourites… you will have to forgive me if I can’t be fagged dredging it up on your behalf. .Try this link again…http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-78670

    Like

  15. Mack, I said nothing about your confrontation with Yale. It is of no interest to me. I linked to that blog post in the context that it concerned the “source” (Nahle) which you relied upon in the link you have given. Since this is apparently where you get your information on carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases from, I think whether the source is scientifically sound is relevant, don’t you?

    I would like you to clearly and concisely lay out just what it is you believe about CO2 here. Your linked posting is neither clear, nor concise. In fact, a large part of it consists of ad hominem attacks. A second reading of it is not going to help.

    Like

  16. Mack:.First read this..Then this…

    Chris B: Mack, perhaps you might do me the courtesy of spelling out your thoughts, in straightforward terms, rather than linking me to previous ongoing discussions on the topic in the past.

    Mack: Try this link again…

    (…facepalm…)

    Like

  17. Well I’ve come to the conclusion I’m obviously dealing with a couple of fuckwitts here. There are some people you could waterboard in the fount of knowledge but they still wouldn’t drink.

    Like

  18. Mack, resorting to personal attacks instead of articulating your thoughts is not going to win you any arguments. Please try again. Or don’t and let the matter drop. Either way.

    Like

  19. There are some people you could waterboard in the fount of knowledge but they still wouldn’t drink.

    NASA.
    NASA drinks at the fount of knowledge all the time.
    This exchange is not between you and someone else on the internet.
    It’s not one link countered by some other link.
    It’s NASA.
    NASA and every single scientific community on the planet….versus you.
    I’m just the humble messenger that cheerfully mentions NASA every chance he gets.
    Now you can choose to ignore NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    Yep, you can.
    Only you have to have a REALLY good reason to do so.
    Linking to some no-name blog is not it.
    NASA.
    Say it with me slowly….N…A…S…A.
    You’ve got nothing in comparison.🙂
    http://climate.nasa.gov/

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s