BWA HA HA, you're funny.

Don’t we all wish

Such a compelling fantasy 😊 If only the owners of the planet hadn't prevented it, and still are. 😠

Not as long as Republicans and Democrats are making a fortune on their Chinese investments.

But after they didn't the climate suddenly changed

We had that with crovid. But not for 15 minutes, about 23 hours a day and they where not scientists.....

They may not have interrupted, but most of them had already made up their minds long before he stopped talking. You can see it in their eyes.

@@-_James_- people need to learn how to listen without the intention of replying. Just listen.

Don't worry, "it's gonna be great."

@@MrXispas Neither was Carl Sagan. He believed in evolution, for which there is absolutely no scientific evidence. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1, KJV). If he couldn't get history right, he couldn't get science right.

We’re not questioning his message, especially considering how we’re not even remotely close to the dirtiest country on the planet (to be fair, Florida isn’t helping our case). We’re questioning why the hell the rest of the world is ignoring this man’s message.

People dont understand that message :) ecology should be obvious for all but must be explained slowly. Its not a "rocket science", dont produce so much trash and control factories is a start. It's clear this famous scientist is not panicking like people today. You claim "noone" touched this subject and it's just childish. People work to minimize bad influence and another group is making money on panicked people - "nobody saves the planet, we will all die!" :) some day we will but people wiil kill people much faster than greenhouse effect. There is something to focus on.

Only those who watched Saudi owned fox "news" propaganda.

Nobody's saying the climate doesn't change. We're saying the world isn't ending in 12 years or whatever insane bullshit people are pushing politically. If you read the IPCC report it actually says if we go to zero emissions tomorrow, which is impossible, that sea level rise and atmospheric warming will continue unabated for CENTURIES. So literally anything that we experience in our lifetimes is UNAVOIDABLE.

@@anusmcgee4150 Well the US is. You can't blame China for the pollution they're making for the products the US is buying cheaply. Their pollution is for the benefit of the western world.

Yet the World is still spinning plants are still growing and no eco apocalypse has happened. Fear mongering then is still the same now just more dramatic

@@steven-cz4bfwhat a simpleton take. imagine not knowing about this issue and what problems it will cause. but hey screw the environment.

@@EdBate after 5 decades of getting it wrong. Yes it's time to admit that climate alarmists are frauds. It's simple to assume that this cult is right despite the fact they are overwhelmingly wrong. What's simple is listening to others not follow the rules that they are setting for you. Aka private jets, large envoys, energy consumption and production in relation to carbon footprints. Co2 is not the enemy. Europe is full of climate droughts and heat waves long before the industrial revolution and multi billion population. Blaming the low water supply on man made climate change is just absurd. 1935 was the hottest year on record. Again long before mass industrialization and energy production. Climate activists simply want to pass new taxes to attempt to control the economy and further damage the dollar. Climate taxes is something I'll pass on. You should too

It's a terrible thing we're doing to our children and grandchildren both then and today we're still not taking enough action to stop human caused greenhouse effect.

@@EdBate welllll I think most of the countries have done a lot. It’s the other countries that haven’t done much at all that would at least have us way better off. I’m in Canada and we contribute a very low percentage to climate change and we have carbon tax and blah blah blah on and on. No matter what we do it gets worse. China and Middle East must help out

They clearly didn’t listen good enough.

@@syproful unfortunately indeed

They listened, but the lobbyists, who pay them, didn't care, so no action was made

He'd be lucky to get three words out before some GQPer went nuts.

And doing.....absolutely NOTHING meaningful to address this terrifying issue when it would have actually made a difference,

I also miss him and we need more rational minds like his, but I think this was just his opening statement. His chance to have his say before questions and bickering.

I can even hear the squeaky voice of ted Cruz asking something genius like "But may I ask, if you say we can;t see the gasses, how can we be sure they are here?"

Yes they were listening to a nice 7th grade science lesson and little more. The predictions have been wrong and will continue to be wrong. Yes the Earth's climate is changing and we can do nothing to stop it. Nothing wrong with looking to new renewable energy source, (those that actually work and are actually renewable). Unfortunately nefarious new world order Marxists have hi-jacked the issue. What the climate accords and green new deals attempt to accomplish have no relationship with naturally accruing climate change. Do not conflate truth with lies.

@@SPBurt1 Yeah the earth is flat. Feminists are stealing our jobs. White racism exist. Trump won the elections. Keep it up wokeman. Save us from the reptilians.

@@RicardoAum lelelle

Nah he went too far with words like microns, wavelength, radiate. I bet they were all clueless

Extraordinary, when someone believes that Venus has a greenhouse effect. If you are a child of course you will believe him without thinking further.

Carl is sorely missed especially by people with an open mind.

He did a terrible job of separating science fiction from science facts.

@@rrkunath Even a child could understand. But not you.

Look at the bright side!! I am completely sure that in 38 years from now the corporations will be fairly patting each other's backs because they succesfully will take all the necesary actions... which will start the next decade

Exactly

I work at a corporation and we just funded a whole new windfarm. What have you done?

​@@zedooncadhz Cool story brah! That justifies how humanity is polluting more today than 38 years ago.

@@duckofdeath3266 what relevance does what I said have to humanities choices for the past 4 decades? I wasn't alive to help back then but I am now. What are you doing except whining? Give me an example of what you actually do

how ironic how you comment 5 days ago and then tiktok comes before congress and becomes the most absolute shitshow

@@HeroDiablo Indeed. It is beyond embarrassing at this point

The one who said, "aaaaa" over a hundred times in his short speech.

Buzz word, butzz word, my political enemy **smear***, buzzword, triggerword, vote, change, uplift word, fearmonger, uplift, buzzword. Yeah, that gets old ^^^^

Too bad all the ears back then were still deaf. They let him speak, but they didn't listen. Not sure that's any better than how they behave today.

🖖

Star Wars Rebel

Highly likely he's in hell, far from resting in peace, because he rejected the one and only atonement for sin which every human is offered but sadly, many reject.

@@christ-centeredcrypto so is yo momma

@@christ-centeredcrypto a god that would torture the soul of a man who hurt nobody is no god at all, but a malevolent demon-

Yet.. Corporations, governments, billionaires see nothing wrong with private jet use. COP28 and WEF in Davos are prime examples.

The Earth is not a 'greenhouse', the 'H2O water cycle' energy- transfer is 1,000,000s greater than CO2, and self-correcting. +2.5 ppm CO2 per year, _a gas more rare than xenon;_ +2.5mm per year 'sea level' rise, _Miami will be ankle deep in 720 years;_ +0.05°C per year is undetectable, _everything_ is now 'The Hottest Day on Record!' _(...climate model simulation..)._

thanks to republicants

​@@BigMacProDaddy this is why nothing changes. You're playing in their game, left right this that... you're brainwashed

Where is that? *With Glacier National Park having to take down the signs that predicted they would be GONE by* *2020??* *SURELY the SNOWS of Kilimanjaro are NO LONGER there RIGHT??* *AL GORE PREDICTED THEY would be gone in 2015 or something...WRONG, again*

​@@BigMacProDaddy *With Glacier Park Glacier's still there??* *WAS OBAMA Admin the ones who put those signs up saying by 2020 they'd be gone??*

Wait until its 50 years old and we're looking back

Have you no formal education? Don't you follow any science education channels on KZfaq? There are many to choose from.

@@plica06 how have you arrived to the conclusion that I may have no formal education - hilarious

​@@plica06what an utterly ignorant comment..

Michio Kaku in 2022: am I a joke to you?

@H Boogie Michio Kaku merely emulates someone like Carl Sagan who focuses on present matters. Michio Kaku is someone who says we're at level "zero" as a civilization cause we don't have a "dison sphere" around the sun, and because of that we're primitive and dumb!

@@guyonthecouch007 we're primitive to aliens that are thousands of years more advance than us.

@@Hboogie182 😆

The carbon footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?

Sadly, We are proving he was right

That's how you know he was lying

Apparently he was wrong.

oof

@@PapiCthulu2 says who? 😀

People have generally been pretty good at reacting to an immediate threat like Pearl Harbour or a killer virus. Long term threats though we are not geared up well to deal with, most governments think only in terms of the next 5 years of their term, also the fossil fuel industry obviously out a lot of effort into delaying or denying need for change.

And he would be embarrassed by how goofy the environmentalism has gone.

You have no idea what you're talking about. And I feel very sad for you. You falsely believe our planet is dying based off of a faulty understanding of the impacts of global warming. I mean this from my heart because if I believed the incorrect popular narrative, I, too, would be shitting my pants

​@@jarren32Oh so understand climate science better than tens of thousand physicists studying and simulating with success the effects of climate change?

@moritzfinke4518 no, I trust the OTHER thousands of scientists that the corporate mainstream media doesnt talk about. Also, don't act like you can read literally any of the hundreds of studies out there on either side. Not something us regulars can do properly. So take your stuffy nose elsewhere

And yet this modern generation lives to cast judgment on the past.

Carl Sagan was demonized by the majority of Americans (as the majority, not just plurality was Christian) during his time. The deep influence of the church reverberated across schools and homes alike because Sagan challenged creationism. Let's not pretend that he got respected by a majority of Americans when he was alive.

That's before FoxNews, the Freedumb Causas, and Citizens United.

DUHHHH

i didnt see that... how did you tell that?

yes...! but perhaps was because we didn't know back then what we know now. Get it ?!

We don't need politicians it doesn't matter if they listen

@Moto Tv Woods Farm Yeah, like when the FBI assassinated Fred Hampton? Please don't be childish.

Carbon dioxide at 0.04% is a 2,500th part of the atmosphere. that means to warm the climate by just 1"c carbon dioxide molecules must capture 2,500"c of heat energy. That is impossible. It also breaks the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. Methane at 0.00017% is a 600,000th of the atmosphere so it's even more impossible. To cause 1°c of heating methane would have to capture 600,000°c of heat energy. Problematic as this is over a hundred times hotter than the surface of the sun. (Methane rapidly breaks down in sunlight). However, the climate is changing. This is because of deliberate geoengineering programmes, inparticular ozone thinning away from the poles. Though largely unreported ozone thinning effect is directly observable producing an unnaturally bright sun and even s bright moon. Under these conditions the pain felt when looking at the sun is not only from the increase in visible light but the much larger increase in infrared. (Look up at the sky and you will see a range of geoengineering operations in progress, these include chemtrail induced cloud or hazing, ripple patterns caused by HAARP installations, bizarre and unnatural cloud formations). Climate change is a programme to force change in accordance with the implementation of agenda 21/2030. Current events demonstrate this transition is well underway and will involve massive population cull through injected nanotech (re transhumanist programme). Agenda 21 also sees the permanent loss of all property rights with the introduction of universal basic income (ref nesara/gesara) and has/is being promoted by the World Economic Forum. 'You will own nothing and you will be happy' WEF In a depopulated world the surviving brainwashed and controlled population will be confined to mega cities. Carbon limits will be used to restrict consumption and liberty. Meanwhile the re-greened wilderness will be the exclusive playground of the ultra rich elite posing as conservationists. The co2 hoax amounts to the theft of the world and the enslavement of humanity by a parasitic few. Welcome to the future! _________ I have included a debunking of 'accumulated heat' as it is so often used to explain how trace elements, so called 'greenhouse gasses', can warm the planet. Accumulated heat whilst sounding a reasonable explanation of how heat can build up is rather nothing more than gobbledygook. In fact it shows those using such arguments do not even understand what heat is. When we measure temperature we are measuring the heat energy a thing is losing. In short heat is a measurement of flow, the transfer of heat energy and this will always be in the direction towards the colder. For this reason a thing can never 'accumulate heat' in the way those advocating co2 climate change describe. The temperature of a body is the measure of heat output, it can never be greater than the measure of heat input. Output = input. When a thing is warmed it is heated to an equivalent of the heat input. If this input is not maintained it will cool. Those that propose that heat can build up to be hotter than the total measure of heat input at a given time either do not understand what heat is or are being deliberately misleading. To illustrate, an object being heated by a flame can never become hotter than that flame, it's temperature cannot rise inexorably to the temperature of the sun for instance. heat cannot be accumulated. When we think about it common sense tells us this must be the case. Nasa and even nobel prize winning physicists have expounded 'accumulated heat' as the explanation how co2 is able to warm the atmosphere. They claim that over hundreds of years co2 has captured heat energy and this heat has 'accumulated' to produce a serious warming effect. As I have just explained, this is totally impossible and fundamentally violates all the laws of thermodynamics. That respected scientists should support such uneducated, unthinking nonsense is disturbing and only reflects that in terms of being able to think clearly about a subject they have no facility or inclination. These are the dark ages of science. Belief has outweighed logic or any critical thought. It tells us that we should not unquestioningly accept anything we are told, that experts can be fools. (nb: Be aware of attempts to discard thermodynamics by talking about biology. eg. 'it only takes a drop of arsenic to kill a person.' This would be somewhat desperate, muddled thinking. clearly biological processes based on the reaction of a cell are not the same as the laws of physics/thermodynamics).

Continued... It is impossible to trap more energy than the energy available. This is the first law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, climate change models require that this heat must be from radiant heat from the Earth's surface. The reason this must be so is explained by the thought experiment as follows: 'Five photons of energy from the sun, one photon is absorbed by CO2. Does the planet warm more than if all five photons had hit the surface? ' Anything that captures radiant energy will in turn radiate 50% of its energy back to space. This is as much a point of logic. It is also easily proved by everyday experience. When a cloud passes overhead it immediately becomes colder, this is because radiant energy is absorbed by the water molecules and the same will be true of CO2. Carbon dioxide can only reduce surface temps though as I explained the proportion of CO2 is so fractional as to have any measurable effect. Clouds, and the fact that nights are colder than days, also demonstrates that Earth loses heat extremely quickly and shows the importance of surface heating from direct sunlight. It also explains why all those peddling the CO2 climate hoax have to ignore infrared in direct sunlight. Were they not to do so the whole charade falls apart as it means half of all infrared energy from the Sun will be radiated back out to space. This is problematic as almost half of the Sun's radiant energy IS INFRARED!!! ... OUCH! Fractional elements have fractional effects. We understand this in everyday common sense as proportion. To imagine carbon dioxide can capture this magnitude of energy is absurd and breaks the basic law of thermodynamics. Were it so all energy needs could be solved through the magical energy capturing power of CO2. There are many other fundamental problems with the CO2 climate change model. Eg that CO2 is highly soluble and is washed out extremely quickly in rainfall; that CO2 levels fluctuate drastically seasonally showing on earth with its high rainfall CO2 is not a gas that accumulates; that heat cannot be trapped in oceans as described in climate models as they are more 'energy dense' than the adjacent air, rather if oceans are becoming warmer it can only be from direct sunlight; that increasing biomass increases CO2 because it increases the carbon in cycle; that correlation is not causation otherwise it could be said daisies cause hot temperatures because there are more daisies when it is warm; that there is extremely dodgy Victorian science/politics behind Ice Ages which is never questioned or examined - eg mammoths despite claims otherwise are not adapted to cold but rather appear to be cold temperate animals similar to highland cattle, their blood is not antifreeze as claimed, they have no sebaceous glands, hair is long but sparse - even yaks being hairier, mammoth remains as far south as Mexico; that how can ice cores be an accurate record of the past if miles of ice have supposedly melted?; that Milankovitch Cycles mean that the Southern Hemisphere is currently in the middle of it's Great Ice Age; that the hypothesis that burning of forest subsequent to Ice Ages resulted in warming is logically inconsistent as 'no new carbon' has been introduced into cycle this all being carbon already in cycle and in any case would be washed out almost immediately; that CO2 levels are at a geological low; that the oxygen cycle is intertwined with the carbon cycle and dependent on it; that life is carbon based and CO2 is essential; that a halving of CO2 levels would result in the extinction of nearly all plant species - problematic as it in turn means theorised measures of atmospheric CO2 during Ice Ages cannot be correct - contrary there was a proliferation of megafauna; that alarmingly, plants already struggle to get enough CO2 for growth which is why farmers will often increase CO2 in greenhouses to promote yields; that the so called 'proofs' showing CO2 is able to capture radiant heat energy only prove the opposite and how very minor this is - that atmospheric concentrations of 0.04% CO2 thermal effect would be far too fractional to even be measured; that comparisons to other planets eg Venus/Mars prove CO2 does not capture the proportion of energy claimed and maybe this is why these comparisons are done less and less; that in order to explain vastly higher concentrations of CO2 in the geological past the sun is deemed to have increased its output this despite losing solar mass (gravitational mass) as fuel, this in turn meaning that the orbits of all the planets are all moving away from the sun - such hypothesis where solar activity is used to exactly compensate for holes in the CO2 climate theory is to ignore other evidential explanations of stars such as the 'electric universe theory'; that the geological archive shows periods of millions of years when CO2 and temperature were heading in opposite directions... etc). Please be aware of organized attempts to dismiss this comment including: - Irrelevant questions and attempts to confuse. This will include misdirection to mainstream narratives. - Closing-down questions and thought by deferring to 'experts'. - Counter accusation. - Contradictory statements that are not supported. - Condescension, abuse and accusation. I have put out this information because it is important. I am aware most will choose to dismiss it and be upset and angry to have beliefs challenged. I have no interest in arguing online. All the necessary info is there in my comment for others to confirm or reject.

Yet more than 35 years later, the world is fine despite emissions skyrocketing... moron

It's sad that we are not intelligent enough and ethical enough to elect people with ethics that understand these issues and do something about them. Thing is, doing something would directly cost the taxpayer money and affect the 1st world lives they lead. Until it's too late, and then it's too late.

@@RocketdogandSeptembr the world is not fine, bigger moron. We get more droughts, more floods, bigger storms, heat waves, a disrupted polar vortex (hence the very cold American winters of late), crop failures, permafrost melting, polar ice caps melting, entire regions becoming uninhabitable due to the heat, etc. The world is not fine. It's going straight to proverbial hell, because of morons like you.

You don’t live in a legitimate democracy

It's bankers protecting the petrodollar (and therefor the entire international exchange system has a vested interest in global warming denial) not just fossil fuel companies

especially china

​@@thewhosjoeEspecially US and Europe. Don't blame China as Carl said for using that energy to develop as much as we did for more than a century now. In Pekin they suffocate each summer so i think China is cleary awared of the situation. As Carl said, we need a worldwide cooperation to take these decisions not as nations, but as a specy.

@@LeDrummerDu88 Stop making excuses for China and their appalling record on the damage they do to the planet and I'll throw in India as well.

Carl Sagan certainly was a great man and a great scientist. But it needs to be noted that he was a physicist, not a geologist or planetologist and certainly not a climatologist. We also got decades more of data and thought about this. He failed to take into account the gas pressure on Venus and how the composition of gases would be unimportant due to adiabatic pressure and temperature. Else Mars, with an almost entirely CO2-atmosphere would have a similar greenhouse effect and temperatures. Secondly he failed to take into account saturation. He correctly states that, if we saw the world in the absorption spectra, it would be black. Adding further absorbers is irrelevant when everything at 50microns already is absorbed, cause nothing more can be absorbed at these wavelengths. So, this endorsement of a globalist fight against climate change should be discarded for the fundamental scientific failures Carl Sagan made in this speech, I am very sorry to say.

@@donaldduck830 Not sure which yahoo you got this information from but you've been duped. Compression of gasses (what you're calling adiabetic pressure) does indeed cause a temperature rise, but only when going from lower pressure to higher pressure. In contrast a lowering of pressure causes a sudden drop in temperature. However the atmosphere of venus is not changing pressure. It's high pressure, but it's stable and unchanging. Thus there is no warming as a result of that pressure. The high pressure of venus is relevant here because it means that the amount of total CO2 in the atmosphere is MUCH higher than just reading the composition would expect. As Carl Sagan correctly states, this is an extreme example and not the expectation for earth. Mars is barely worth mentioning. While it is 95% carbon dioxide, the atmosphere is so thin that this is almost irrelevant to anything.

Imagine a comments section with no PR reps

Al Gore has demonstrated through his actions that he understood this message and is willing to take risks against the Maga cult and Trump who believes that when it snows in New York, it is proof that global warming is a hoax ( his favorite word for anything that he disagrees with)

If we have intelligence on this planet,this monetary system would not exist,politicians would not exist,army would not exist,countries would not exist etc

Couldn't agree with you more! No one has ever explained climate change better than Carl Sagan! In fact many of his key point's he makes are repeated word for word by others but either come off too boring or biased. Carl Sagan explains in better in 15 minutes than Al Gore in a hour. Also he was respected by people on both sides of the isle.

I would say he would make a massive difference in the discussions and decision processes if he were still alive, but I’m afraid he may be drowned out in the sea of Twitter drones and full time bloggers (ie, popular science and political news sites) like nearly everything else of importance has been. Or worse, he would just be politicized and ignored.

If you miss his absence that means you wish he wasn't here.

@@KB-jh3rt hahaha you’re “that guy”

@@user-ke5wk2kr9y Nope, it's the behavior issue.

Not even a cough or chair squeak.

Don't get it wrong, they still hated the other side. Republicans weren't above calling Democrats "commies" whenever they could.

you people are naive and gullible, do you know how much carbon dioxide is in the air? take a guess, i'll tell you right now that at .02% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, plantlife starts dying off! we have .04% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today, we went from .03% to .04% in 60 years, and bounce back and forth between those two numbers, and this isnt my opinion, or theory, this is solid 100% fact, and science, we are in no danger of climate change, not for a long time yet, do you people realize that 7.8 billion people will fit in a state the size of new york? we are still pretty insignificant to this planet, what is messing things up is the poisoning of the oceans with radiation, and the removal of sand from our oceans, this is causing 1000 times more problems than andy climate issues, and it doesn't help you have our governments let whoever play with weather manipulation, the human species is stupid!

Remind the Republicans of that....

@@rosemarieroth1984 Can I remind the left about their failed vaccine program and nazi shit they did the last few years or will the truth just trigger you? The right sucks too but you morons take the cake in recent times.

​​@@rosemarieroth1984Let's paint the house red first.

Except that greenhouse has a different physics (solid insulative material) to atmosphere (buffer with particles). It was not the first time where Sagan was wrong - eg. the Dragons of Eden regarding sleep and development of brain.

You realize don't you that's the WEATHER. In your life what has the WEATHER done? THAT is a trend that is CLIMATE change.

Spot On. And that's because, then and NOW, they all were election funded by fossil fuel money.

i guess you missed Al Gore's cameo

@@lanceglover9538 It's about your co2 you numbnuts.

The United Nations can hardly decide which 5 star catering company gets to supply the food for the Security Council meetings😂😂

Politicians are generally not intelligent enough to grasp the concepts he'd talk about. They would pretend to understand and do nothing, as they do with everything else.

I'm so glad that this whole problem was acknowledged and addressed back in the days and is of no concern for current and future generations. Everrising sea levels, everrising temperatures and extreme heat, wildfires, migration movements, intensifying of extreme wheater, droughts and floodings sure don't sound so good, but I'm relieved everyone was aware of the incredible inertia of the global climate system and humanity together solved that problem.

I can't tell if you are joking, but these problems are still prevailing in many ways

​@@frogwood1713Yeah it's a joke. The politicians back then were at least trained enough to not interrupt the experts that don't impact policy decisions. Today politicians overtly make it clear they don't care what any expert says unless it is service to our corporate masters.

We would be better off without a Congress that can bought and paid for

If more master degree scientist types went into politics we would have the right laws passed and corporations ravaging earth would stop in a few decades.

@@voltaire4839 Doesn't matter if you're the local plumber or Elon Musk, the moment you wield those powers, you're on the clock as a politician.

All representatives should have a science degree of some sort, this country is run by lawyers, that's why we're doing so great. Carl was where he belonged, acurately predicting the future in 50 years. F'in amazing, both that he was so dead on and that these slack jawed yokels didn't remember any of it after lunch

A scientist is also a human being. That is to say that, in order to understand stuff, one needs to be able to dumb it down for oneself as well. We have this saying: "if you can't explain it to your grandma, then you don't know what you're talking about."

It's also amazing how big coporations turned it into a personal issue rather than a political one. Consumers have almost no impact on the total output of pollutants, the industry has. The only way to stop the massive destruction and pollution of the nature we need to survive is to force coporations with laws and regulations.

Like humanity the industries too will die. They are only hurting themselves and their families future.

your timeline seems to be a bit messed up. Petrol industry, or to be more precise Exxon, financed the first scientific study about climate change, its threats and the possibility of human origin. This was several years before this interview here. And as soon as they got the study results, the misinformation campaigns started. The most iconic proof for the knowledge of the petrol industry and that they believed in it was the change in the recent years going from "not our fault" to greenwashing in such an hilarious scale that I'd like to puke everytime I see a sample of it.

He was morally fucked, he got divorced twice.

I submit that he is a treasure to all humanity, now and in perpetuity

I'm sorry to hear this, I assume you've now reached the conclusion that hardcore creationists are in fact idiots.

Same here my friend. I was raised by creationists. Now we are adults. You chooses the way you live and your family .

Why do people go to extreme religions? To deny reality in favor of things that can't be proven is strange to me.

Yes! This fucking fossil fuel fucked-up Exxon Shell BP mess yada yada would be fucking FIXED by now.

This was before Chernobyl and Fukushima.

@@NuntiusLegis and he still said they had their own problems, but he was presenting facts on the greenhouse effect.

And Nuclear Energy wouldn’t help all the carbon burning cars and trucks billions of them. And nuclear energy is the most expensive and dangerous way mankind has come up with to simply boil water.

​@NuntiusLegis and, yet, it is still safer than even hydro power per kWh

Exactly why it's not like that anymore. One side doesn't want facts to be grasped, so they yell and scream and distract.

I'm a big fan so scientific objectivity, but thinking facts alone will convince people is sometimes criticised as the 'deficit model'. Unless you are more motivated to learn and understand than you are to protect them perceived interests of your community, you may ignore or reject uncomfortable knowledge however you can. See Sagan in 1990 on Croesus versus Cassandra and how relating to climate change 'denial is not just a river in Egypt'. There's also a famous quotation of his about how painful it's is to admit you've been bamboozled by charlatans. So there need to be honest channels of communicating besides facts. You might be interested in Prof Katherine Hayhoe's book "Saving Us" about the importance of bonding and finding common ground with people and inspiring them with effective climate action. It seems many people whose political tribe or personality compels them to remain silent on global threats still see the local benefits of wind power and EVs. If facts aren't the problem, why am I writing all this :)

this is almost 40 years ago and people are still walking around with their eyes closed fingers in ears saying LA,LA,LA, as loudly as they can

@@davedixon2068 And there are still people selling sand to ostriches. Surveys show (Yale Six Americas) most people aren't like that. The majority are concerned, but want to know what to do. Sagan's answers to that are broadly still correct, but other experts (like Mike Berners-Lee and Katharine Hayhoe) are a bit more up-to-date.

​@@davedixon2068 That's an optimistic view. For every person doing the 'LALALA', there are 3 people who are so over their heads working 3 jobs to make ends meet they have no time to consider the future, and 1 person screaming 'trans - culture war - witch hunt - woke - great replacement - child abuse - baby killer - fascist' at everyone they meet, whilst engaging in or supporting at least one of the things they are screaming at others about. When those last people manage to elect an immature narcissist to 'the leader of the free world', alongside other countries where they don't even elect their own less immature and more deadly narcissist dictators, there is not a hope for real consensus to deal with the most important problems - they are less important than feeding the endless void of such leaders.

Our government wouldn't let him today, unfortunately, or at least one side of it.

@@Destrate Actually neither side would want to hear him. One side due to his globalist stance, the other because he is a white male. But it needs to be noted that Sagan was a physicist, not a geologist or planetologist and certainly not a climatologist. He failed to take into account the gas pressure on Venus and how the composition of gases would be unimportant due to adiabatic pressure and temperature. Else Mars, with an almost entirely CO2-atmosphere would have a similar greenhouse effect. Secondly he failed to take into account saturation. He correctly states that, if we saw the world in the absorption spectra, it would be black. Adding further absorbers is irrelevant when everything at 50microns already is absorbed, cause nothing more can be absorbed at these wavelengths. So, this endorsement of a globalist fight against climate change should be discarded for the fundamental scientific failures Carl Sagan made in this speech, I am very sorry to say.

He just explained the same propaganda that we are told today, that is why he was allowed to be put on record talking about something as stupid as a greenhouse gas effect on Venus.

@@GeorgiosD90 you're too blind to see beyond your own backyard to understand how real climate change is and the damage it's going to cause for future generations. You're the one being fed propaganda by the corporations and those being paid by said corporations. Try seeing the whole world instead of just your home.

Greenhouse effect is an outdated term?

I guess his lecture to children was pitched at a suitably higher level. :)

@@Cedders001 😀

Except that "clarity" is never the main feature of a great scientist. Of a great orator yes, but not a scientist.

I know a guy with an IQ of about 95, 5 kids and as an antivaxxer, he's always going on about vaccines mean we're heading to Idiocracy. I don't think he's ever heard the word irony used in a sentence, let alone know what it means.

The fantasy of Idiocracy is they knew they were idiots and so then listened to the smartest person in the room. We are much too egotistical to succeed like in Idiocracy.

Brilliant, but not a climatologist and definitely wrong here on nearly every point. The data shows no significant change to the climate due to human activity. None.

@@thecaptain29 You have obviously no f.. idea what youre talking about and like with flat earthers I dont really care what you dont know,

i dont miss him at all

Briliant man? how?

​@@troyhaileydon't slander him like this

Yup, long before the transsexualism fad

It is today!!!

It is a much better place because he was.

tthats why is show COSMOS was so popular in the 1970's

He only repeated the propaganda, nothing special.

Also most predictions done back then when the science itself was fairly new and with far less computing power than today has been spot on. And Sagan's quotes nails it, he foresaw everything that's happening today, including the anti science "don't look up" crowd. Edit: This one: “I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness... The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”

@@gottagowork He didn't foresee anything, he just presented the pseudoscience, which is being done till today. If a theory is false, that does not depend on computing power.

@@GeorgiosD90 Thanks. I wanted to mute you.

yup. great communicator. gore/obama copied him. they were all wrong. Sagan was honestly wrong. the later two are just con artist hypocrites.

@@justthink5854 What a lunatic; come off of this crazy narrative. I'm no liberal or screaming "snowflake" but your incendiary and uneducated comment is just plain ignorance. When you take the time to learn the science of atmospheric science (meteorology) and then study basic chemistry and physics you will come to a new realization. Your weather isn't created for "your" or me by "God" or any other divine being; it's the process of the Laws of Thermodynamics when combined with the earths rotational movement, incoming solar radiation, and water. Speak when you can explain the process of a thunderstorm: how it forms, why and how there is lightning, and what makes hail and ultimately rain?! Then you will have a basis of knowledge that is demonstrable; not some trite dribble and passive, baseless insult. If you are so motivated, watch some videos of the brilliant Brian Cox (physicist, not athlete) for quick catch-up courses on science you seemingly missed out on. Good luck.

Guy McPherson, David Suzuki, and Bill Nye are among the climate scientists carrying on what Carl Sagan explained in those days. They are described as "doomists".

@@InvestingForTomorrow24 Bill Nye is no more a real scientist than Telly Savalas was a real NYC policeman. A quick check will reveal this.

Science worshipers are cultists.

How the world was hijacked by con artists is a question that induced scientists like Naomi Oreskes and Geoffrey Supran to move into the humanities to answer it. Have you seen 'The Power of Big Oil' (PBS title( or 'Big Oil Vs The World' (BBC title)'? We should stop the slow poison to the world's carbon cycle at source, but we should also stop the slow poison to democracy at source.

do you mean "artists"? propaganda spreaders of big bussiness?

What truths has he proven 40+yrs later?. There has be no change in sea-levels as he stated to be in "meters" and we are well into the next century.

Its called dumbing down, only do things so that the lowest common denominator can understand, make exams that everyone can pass not to improve everyone, keep the prolls dumb then we can tell them anything we want, see it happening all the time in the States but its spreading everywhere

you people are naive and gullible, do you know how much carbon dioxide is in the air? take a guess, i'll tell you right now that at .02% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, plantlife starts dying off! we have .04% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today, we went from .03% to .04% in 60 years, and bounce back and forth between those two numbers, and this isnt my opinion, or theory, this is solid 100% fact, and science, we are in no danger of climate change, not for a long time yet, do you people realize that 7.8 billion people will fit in a state the size of new york? we are still pretty insignificant to this planet, what is messing things up is the poisoning of the oceans with radiation, and the removal of sand from our oceans, this is causing 1000 times more problems than andy climate issues, and it doesn't help you have our governments let whoever play with weather manipulation, the human species is stupid!

We will be for centuries to come, if we make it that far.

These were not his thoughts, he's merely reporting well known scientific facts at that point in time.

All that's changed is we've learned there isn't a run away greenhouse effect, although our stupid governments keep promoting it. It's just another power grab.

Carl Sagan was certainly amazing, his thoughts in 1985 spell out the irresponsibility that was put on-ice back then, and is now resurfacing today in 2022 is a testament to the criminality of capitalism. It displays our willingness to destroy this planet many times over then shrug like dumb monkeys about what happened. Perhaps it is a blessing to be an ancient and deceased civilization because our bones and decomposed bodies will not create the lakes of underground oil that the flora and fauna of the dinosaurs did. A future society will have to consider non-fossil fuel sources in order to survive. That is, if they ever get another chance like ours.

@@TheMPBailey "Climate changed" has NEVER been "put on ice". Every few years, our propaganda "news" media predicts eminent collapse of the environment that nearly every single kid between 13 and 23 believes is about to happen, and in about 10 - 15 years. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did the latest announcement then Greta Thunberg. Cortez said the world was about to end in 12 years in 2018. Gore predicted the end of all major glaciers in under 10 years in 2006 and the north pole being ice free within the next decade. Neither came to pass. We were supposed to run out of oil by 2005 due to Hubbert's Peak in 2005 back in 1990. In 1985 the UN was predicting the Las Angeles, NY, and San Francisco was going to be under water due to ocean levels rising. The Great Barrier Reef was supposed to be gone by 2005 because of an increase in ocean temperatures. It's been going on for 40 years. Some panic that all the "kids" believe, and some of the older ones, it's repeatedly endlessly in the "news" press, and then people forget the predictions never happened. They've been doing this for 4 decades. And people are sick of it. At least An Inconvenient Truth was put on film, and you can see all the predictions there, and see how completely wrong they were. In it there was "the hockey stick", at which point, supposedly, the Earth would hit a runaway greenhouse effect, and it would get hotter and hotter every year, and it was the point of no return. Go see the film. It's all just bunk. In the 1970's the impending disaster was the Population Bomb, and get this - a new ice age. They REALLY said this. How many times do they have to be wrong before you realize they're just full of crap?

And in the process set back energy efficiency for decades. His negative effect, therefore, on emissions of greenhouse gasses is massive.

but these were not issues until he brought them up. almost as if he was giving them the ideas.

@@suserman7775 How so

@@imshaunnurse "but these were not issues until he brought them up" That is not how reality works.

@@ballparkjebusite After nuclear energy started making headway and actually improving our energy infrastructure, the Left took a stance against it. They purposely conflated two separate issues, nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors, into one umbrella item to be an activist against. The average person likes to feel like a concerned citizen but at the same time has extremely little knowledge of either "nuke". The result was no growth in reactors since the 80s. Of course, our energy demand didn't shrink an iota, so the shortfall of not having nuclear energy meant extra pollution from coal or gas plants. Thanks Carl.

Taking his classes in university would have been a treat.

@@ridiculous_gaming and then jump into your 4 wheel drive with the heating full blast when you get home. :-)

@@paulcrawford1108 Having the heat full blast doesn't use any more gasoline than having it off. AC on the other hand does.

@@jasonlarsen4945 I am talking about his dirt hut.............. not his car

@@paulcrawford1108 A 4 wheel drive hut? You sound pretty smart. 🙄

What if I told you a real Carl Sagan actually existed and was alive on Earth at a time when it could reasonably have affected climate change *and testified before Congress*

@@BarderBetterFasterStronger What if I told you you missed the point? Maybe more people would be sensitive to his words today. You cannot guarantee anything just because of the past. *You* just can't know for sure. Whatever the result would be, having him is better than not having him, that's the point. And if you bet it wouldn't matter that's your *guess*. Juat a guess. Well, I have the right to have a guess too and I guess it would be better with him than it is without.

It’s extremely painful to some of us NOW in 2022. It’s tragic that our government couldn’t get its act together at Carl Sagan’s time.

In 50 years you'll be digging for water, while trying not to be killed and eaten by a competing tribe.

@@allesdurchprobiert you are a 🤡 if you believe that

I agree. This won't age well at all when in 50 years the planet is exactly the same it is today.

@@allesdurchprobiert lmao all fun theories, i dont buy it

No, what we have here is a good liar and a gullible audience.

@@thebackpainmiracle what is he lying about? Glaciers are melting, ice sheets are breaking, weather is changing, Egypt and Middle East used to be more fertile, we can use mathematical equations to determine temperate on another celestial object and then measure to determine if the maths are correct, and we could use with more long term thinking. Where are the lies?

The carbon /toxicity footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?

​@@destur1 i dont see skilled professionals able to predict conditions more than a few days into the future. nobody can predict temperatures next year, but somehow decades are not a problem. awful just awful.

@@echelonrank3927 I can predict average temperatures of next year: hotter than this year. Oh and I can predict this year average global temperature too: hottest in history.

Same here dear Erik T. Sagan made me understand "it is Cosmos and not Chaos".

The carbon footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?

Dear Lorenzo, Yes, you are pointing out to a substantial emissions source but friend people who can do something about it are not listening unless common people in huge numbers focus on the purely Kafkaesque scenario of conflicts and the associated weapons industry (or may be reverse, viz., conflicts arising out of the itch we humans gets once we put together some powerful weapons system ).

Back then, the present QAnon, alt-right, and self-described "Common sense conservative" types would have shouted "Nerd!" at you. For those not around back in 1985, then, 'nerds' on the youth social heirarchy were just barely above racial minorities (esp Blacks) and LGBTQS.

because then it was about the country/people now it is about scoring political points to further their own careers, personally I dont believe that there will be any changes made until far too late so make sure your grand kids are well trained

He just explained how Venus has a greenhouse effect, even though it is impossible for Venus to have a greenhouse effect. Maybe it is not that the is a good communicator but a good deceiver.

​@@GeorgiosD90why do you believe that it is impossible for Venus to have the greenhouse gas effect?

@@Ewww1219 It is impossible, because Venus has a dense atmosphere in super critical state, which allows only a very small amount of sun radiation to reach the ground and reflected, therefore it cannot cause any warming to the atmosphere. It is an example used frequently to deceive the masses, that know nothing about Venus.

​@GeorgiosD90 it's impossible? It's proven fact that it does, so I'd be very interested in your take and can't wait to congratulate you on your Nobel prize

@@readysetcomedypodcast1341 It is impossible for Venus to have a GHG effect, as it has very low sun radiation reaching the surface and proving it is simple physics no nobel price is necessary. Check it out for yourself. This guy is talking out of his ass about things he doesnt know of.

he had a gift for bs word salad that sounded and felt good. professional lip flapper. over rated.

@@peterbelanger4094 What are your credentials?

@@peterbelanger4094word salad maybe if your crib was coated with lead paint

@@peterbelanger4094 just say you can’t understand even his simple explanations

Cause he was a simpleton.

Careful what you wish for. WEF/Davos billionaires/club of Rome/IPCC “sustained development”-UN agenda 21/30.

Thats the thing, the world has come together, its just that the wealthy powerful people of the world have come together to make sure nothing gets in the way of them making money. They will continue to stop climate action because they are only concerned with their immediate profits, they could care less about the harm they are doing to this planet.

@@knutz7 I support the U.N. agendas - you should too!

"His last point" was EXACTLY what we have today. An appeal for global elites to run the world for us and let us eat whatever crumbs & scraps that fall from their table. That is the ONLY reason he was the focus of this "Dog & Pony" show PAID FOR BY THE GLOBAL ELITES. "Almost 40 years later" and the temperate is fine, the ice caps are fine, "the massive rise in sea levels" is nowhere to be found and Obama spends 27 million $'s on a Beach front property as he leaves the Presidency and hands over environmental policy to Donald J Trump.

So "Almost 40 years later" the elites have got a wonderful return on their investment to make Lemmings out of a once free people who never pass an opportunity to demonstrate their counterfeit "wokness" and counterfeit virtue all the while funding these Global Elites with the labor of everyday Americans.

He would probably feel demoralised as to how his analysis was ignored. Instead, there has been hysteria and manipulation. As he said, it is a worldwide problem. A few countries taking action doesn’t solve it.

But did he mention possibility that emissions do nothing important while temperature patterns being driven by cyclically through cosmic cycles changing pressure in troposphere? kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z7-PoZVpmMy9kpc.html This would change everything fundamentally. but this world is not driven by free scientific discourse anymore so you can't expect anything reasonable on this planet anymore either ;-) have a Great day

He is a shit talker,

Some numb skulls would have started conspiracy theories about him call him a devil and all sorts of bullshit names .

@@GuardianApe I see another shit talker

Nobody wants nuclear. So no, it makes sense. Not bummed at all.

The Generation in political and economical leading position at this times and even today are just a effing disgrace

He said the effects would really be apperent around this (right now) time but he gave our species too much credit and said the mid to late 21 century.

I am bummed too. This whole greenhouse effect was established science for centuries even by 1985. Not decades, mind you, but centuries, with first speculations going all the way back to 1824, when Queen Victoria was a five-year old child. Yet, not much has changed. Hell, I'd even argue it's worse.

Not just you but he changed some peoples minds at least.

Because everything that has to be said has been said. We need action now. Policians do what is popular with the citizens. But citizens are stupid. So a few activists try to press the issue. But most of them are stupid too, so they overshoot, asking for too much, resulting in the general population being less fond of the topic, resulting in politicians doing less. We're doomed. Just enjoy your life, don't get kids and wait for the end.

@@inanitas You are right, humans are fucking idiots. It is like we are living in the Dark Ages again where science means nothing.

@@inanitas We are not doomed but we are very late. Mankind will not be extinct because of climate change but possibly from wars it can lead to. Climate change will kill millions and make life very tough to billions, how many of each is up to us. EU is doing something, have you heard of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism? My representative in the EU-Parliament has played a major role in creating some building renovation rules that will reduce energy consumption, this is copied by the Indian government. And Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium have decided to build 150 GW wind turbines in the North Sea. So I hope you will support the efforts! The reason why we elect politicians which do too little is because we are too poorly educated to elect adequate ones.

@@inanitas bugman demoralized into not perpetuating his own bloodline. Another success for globalist propaganda

I just need to know what the Kardashian’s are doing.

Until you listen to his words and then read present-day headlines.

Fuck him, he was a traitor pushing a commie scam.

He was a big priest in the church of "science"

@@tenhovergonha8739 ignorant 'posion the well' comment. Complete ignoramce and Dunning Kruger inspired. Do BETTER

@@tenhovergonha8739 There is no church of science. Science is the absolute opposite of religion. Science is not about faith or belief. Science is about FACT

carl was on the dope most of the time

Wasn't that Al Gore in the video? Isn't he constantly vilified for doing just that?

I wanted to add that like many have stated in the comments, he was respected and was given the time to say what needed to be said which is rare these days. There are other changes that will be needed before more people like him will be heard

What issues? Did any of the catastrophic climate predictions come to pass? The club of Rome was wrong and Al Gore was wrong with everything and Carl Sagan made an oopsie here, too. Carl Sagan certainly was a great man and a great scientist. But it needs to be noted that he was a physicist, not a geologist or planetologist and certainly not a climatologist. We also got decades more of data and thought about this. He failed to take into account the gas pressure on Venus and how the composition of gases would be unimportant due to adiabatic pressure and temperature. Else Mars, with an almost entirely CO2-atmosphere would have a similar greenhouse effect and temperatures. Secondly he failed to take into account saturation. He correctly states that, if we saw the world in the absorption spectra, it would be black. Adding further absorbers is irrelevant when everything at 50microns already is absorbed, cause nothing more can be absorbed at these wavelengths. So, this endorsement of a globalist fight against climate change should be discarded for the fundamental scientific failures Carl Sagan made in this speech, I am very sorry to say.

You're absolutely right. It was actually well known decades ago to scientists about the greenhouse effect. It's insane the fossil fuel companies were allowed to stymie progress and still are, condemning humanity's children and grandchildren the world over to terrible upheaval and suffering.

What shit? I lived in Nova Scotia, and it’s always experienced hurricanes. However, the media is now saying they’re more common, and more destructive. They’re not. They’re were quite a few forest fires in Canada this year. Media spin? Climate change. The truth? The vast majority of them were due to arson.

It's really not that insane. It's just simple calculations. What's insane is people still not believing it.