Others have stated that if a show has advocacy, even if it is based on scientific proof, it is inadequate as documentary. This show is about Claire "Pat" Patterson who dedicated his life to two issues: finding the age of the Earth and dealing with the preponderance of lead in our atmosphere, our products, and our oceans. He is perhaps one of the most heroic people in our history, and one who nobody knows. The fact of the matter is that when money is talking, a lot of discourse is over. The climate change issue is just the next in a series of factors that are being debated because massive death and destruction in the future doesn't affect the current generation. Whether the narrator has an agenda is not an issue. There is no such thing as a presentation without some agenda. I assume if the presentation said there was no climate change, it would have gotten ten stars. Once again, a masterful telling of a great investigation and the courageous efforts to get the word out.
4 Reviews
great show
michaelryan-126411 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Brian - no - Neil believes in science not global warming. It just so happens that 99% of all scientist believe in global warming... And any good scientist will change his mind if someone can present the information that suggest something different. So yes - he believes in the scientific data and studies that strongly suggest global warming is happening and most likely caused by CO2 pollution tied to man's burning of fossil fuels.
Neil believes there is a parallel between lead pollution denial and CO2 denial. Looks pretty obvious to me. Willie Soon is your deceiving "scientist" of today - paid highly by the coal and petro corportions to sew seeds of doubt - just like the "evil" characters in the clean room episode.
If you choose to ignore the facts - many many people will be affected. Just like in the lead poisoning case.
Neil believes there is a parallel between lead pollution denial and CO2 denial. Looks pretty obvious to me. Willie Soon is your deceiving "scientist" of today - paid highly by the coal and petro corportions to sew seeds of doubt - just like the "evil" characters in the clean room episode.
If you choose to ignore the facts - many many people will be affected. Just like in the lead poisoning case.
Clair Patterson Forever!!
elo-equipamentos3 June 2017
When this series was aired on Natgeo channel l'd taped some episodes to be watch later and all them are a high profile documentary, wisely hosted by this magnificent scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson given a proper respect to the show, telling important facts of our past, in this episode is about how measure the Earth's age, which was in charge of a young guy called Clair Patterson who gave to all mankind an answer that we expect so far and how the poisoned air by "LEAD" can destroy the brain's people being a causative agent that has a great damages in the mankind, this series touch us through of the science to learn more about the real and important things, it's a matter of fact!!!
Resume:
First watch: 2017 / How many: 1 / Source: Netflix / Rating: 8.5
Resume:
First watch: 2017 / How many: 1 / Source: Netflix / Rating: 8.5
5% of politics ruins 95% of science
brian806517 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
An interesting and captivating story of Clair Patterson's pursuit to remove lead in gasoline from the environment. Patterson is the hero and Dr. Robert H. Kehoe is the villain, because he got money from evil General Motors. It is a great story, and largely true. Patterson was the good guy, and Kehoe and GM were wrong.
Then at the last two minutes Neil deGrassse Tyson tells that scientists are "Raising the alarm on other environmental issues." This to imply that Tyson is such a scientist, and he is a good guy, just like Paterson. This is where he loses me. I am binge watching Cosmos right now, and am sickened by the repeated references to Climate Change. It changes the show from great pop science to politcial advocacy.
Tyson did this show because he believes in Global Warming. If he did not, he would not have gotten the gig. I see him as being closer to the Robert H. Kehoe character than Clair Patterson.
The largest point that Neil deGrasse Tyson is making in the series is, "There is Climate Change, (read Global Warming), vote for the Democrat." When he does this, he loses or insults half his audience.
I would be much more interested in a full 2 hour show where he makes his scientific case for global warming and thus, the Democratic party, and has equally accomplished scientists on the other side debate the issue. But that show will never been seen, as the Global Warming side does not debate this issue.
I love science and nature shows. They should be about science and nature.
Then at the last two minutes Neil deGrassse Tyson tells that scientists are "Raising the alarm on other environmental issues." This to imply that Tyson is such a scientist, and he is a good guy, just like Paterson. This is where he loses me. I am binge watching Cosmos right now, and am sickened by the repeated references to Climate Change. It changes the show from great pop science to politcial advocacy.
Tyson did this show because he believes in Global Warming. If he did not, he would not have gotten the gig. I see him as being closer to the Robert H. Kehoe character than Clair Patterson.
The largest point that Neil deGrasse Tyson is making in the series is, "There is Climate Change, (read Global Warming), vote for the Democrat." When he does this, he loses or insults half his audience.
I would be much more interested in a full 2 hour show where he makes his scientific case for global warming and thus, the Democratic party, and has equally accomplished scientists on the other side debate the issue. But that show will never been seen, as the Global Warming side does not debate this issue.
I love science and nature shows. They should be about science and nature.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
