Thread: David Bellamy: BBC shunned me for denying climate change

Originally Posted by Clippo
David Bellamy: victim! but of who?
From :- David Bellamy: victim! but of who? Greenfyre’s

The old fella is obviously losing his marbles.

Originally Posted by g hall

He's not the only one is he

As the topic of this thread is about David Bellamy, I thought i would share about my recent meeting with him (David Bellamy)

I was at a conference earlier this year, not specifically about environmental issues, but nevertheless it was quite high up on the conference agenda ( a hot topic it seems). The organisers had invited a number of speakers - not all at the same time, but each had a chance to put a number of views on this issue.

I think that one of the reasons Bellamy is not on TV these days might be to do with his broadcasting skills not being as good as they used to be - but to be fair, he is still able to make some coherent arguments. He might look a little old for TV (they always want young faces) and he does suffer from 'hard of hearing', so is not particularly good in a debate!! A lot of this is just natural with age.

The BBC shunning him because of his views on climate change is perhaps part of the truth, but i suspect it is not a single issue - it was a number of reasons, including the bias the BBC expresses in a number of topics from environment to politics.

Although i am not happy with the 'human-caused climate change' enthusiasts having such a large say over many govts - as it is ignoring what is the real issues with the environment, whilst making money over what essentially is a lie, i do feel a warm sense of satisfaction when i contemplate the long term - the "I told you so", when many in that camp finally realise the error of their ways, and the significance of AGW is debunked.

The reality of global warming will eventually 'out', and the swindle will be plain for all to see. In the meantime, i will continue to express my view - backed up with reason - in the hope that some will at least see the truth expressed by the 'denialists' as Clippo would refer to them as, and stand up for what is real science, and not the manipulated science of many in the pay of governments today.

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Politicians who are told to vote against their own morals, or worse, constituencies wishes; should bite their hands.

All the others you mentioed - yes, but with this one - politicians - a stronger biting might be appropriate - biting off their necks might be more apt!!

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

I am employed, but I left my last company out of principle, as they were fully involved with ID cards.

Now I could have just shut up, done as I was told and continued to take their coin, but I chose to bite their hand and leave.

Sometimes biting the hand that feeds you is not only wise, but morally the right thing to do.

Nazi soldiers told to kill Jews by their bosses should have bitten their hands.

Women who are told to perform sexual favours to keep their job, should bite their hand.

Journalists who are told not to report things, should bite their hands.

Scientists who are paid to come to certain predefined conclusions, should bite their hands.

Politicians who are told to vote against their own morals, or worse, constituencies wishes; should bite their hands.

It's called principle Clippo. Something that used to matter to the British.

ID cards arnt that bad aslong as you have a good government.

Originally Posted by Nyge21

As the topic of this thread is about David Bellamy, I thought i would share about my recent meeting with him (David Bellamy)

I was at a conference earlier this year, not specifically about environmental issues, but nevertheless it was quite high up on the conference agenda ( a hot topic it seems). The organisers had invited a number of speakers - not all at the same time, but each had a chance to put a number of views on this issue.

I think that one of the reasons Bellamy is not on TV these days might be to do with his broadcasting skills not being as good as they used to be - but to be fair, he is still able to make some coherent arguments. He might look a little old for TV (they always want young faces) and he does suffer from 'hard of hearing', so is not particularly good in a debate!! A lot of this is just natural with age.

The BBC shunning him because of his views on climate change is perhaps part of the truth, but i suspect it is not a single issue - it was a number of reasons, including the bias the BBC expresses in a number of topics from environment to politics.

Although i am not happy with the 'human-caused climate change' enthusiasts having such a large say over many govts - as it is ignoring what is the real issues with the environment, whilst making money over what essentially is a lie, i do feel a warm sense of satisfaction when i contemplate the long term - the "I told you so", when many in that camp finally realise the error of their ways, and the significance of AGW is debunked.

The reality of global warming will eventually 'out', and the swindle will be plain for all to see. In the meantime, i will continue to express my view - backed up with reason - in the hope that some will at least see the truth expressed by the 'denialists' as Clippo would refer to them as, and stand up for what is real science, and not the manipulated science of many in the pay of governments today.

We should go along with this climate change stuff as it is not us who are doing it.
This is a good chance to harm China, India and the USA.

Re ; biting the hand that feeds one:-

Mpkdavies wrote:-

It's called principle Clippo.

&

Now I could have just shut up, done as I was told and continued to take their coin, but I chose to bite their hand and leave.

It was fortunate then, presumably, you had already lined-up an ‘escape’ route.

The issue for most people, and why the phrase is a truism that most people have to live with all their lives , is that they may not have a convenient ‘escape’ route.

We could debate the morality of ‘principles’ for a long time. However, I think your list of examples is a bit ‘sanctimonious’ (I’m not sure if that’s the best word so don’t pick me up on it please).
For example:-

Nazi soldiers told to kill Jews by their bosses should have bitten their hands.

Yes, by our principles with the benefit of hindsight. It’s the easiest thing in the world to tell people what they SHOULD have done. But also maybe there was the possibility that those Nazi soldiers also agreed with their bosses’ principles.
&

Women who are told to perform sexual favours to keep their job, should bite their hand.

Ditto to my first reply above. But also I believe Industrial tribunals make this a very lucrative ‘escape’ route for such women.
&

Journalists who are told not to report things, should bite their hands.

A bit vague this one. I don’t know of many self respecting journalists who are moral cowards. On the other hand I can see the benefit of stamping hard on reporting ‘legal’ matters which may eventually pervert the course of justice or the ‘D’ Notice’ system.
&

Scientists who are paid to come to certain predefined conclusions, should bite their hands.

Conspiracy paranoia taking over from commonsense again. Name names and exact instances.
&

Politicians who are told to vote against their own morals, or worse, constituencies wishes; should bite their hands.

As a firm believer in Direct Democracy I have some sympathy with this statement.
These politicians though, are running the risk of biting the hand the feeds them – via the ballot box.
Your principles would suggest you try to change the system BUT in the meantime what would you do.

A simple example slightly relevant to the title of the thread.
Presumably you disagree with the TV licence fee (if not please take the viewpoint of others who do).
What are your choices ? Pay the fee or be fined/imprisoned/have the TV seized as well.

Some here are trying to twist this phrase personally against me. All I will say is that none of you have any idea whatsoever when & where I have acted on principle or pragmatism.
I assume that these personal accusations are to try to score points because they think will discredit my arguments in other matters. Shows up their stupid logic.

Back to the thread subject :-

I have merely pointed out discrepancies in Bellamy’s excuses for ‘leaving’ the BBC.

The analysis in my second link David Bellamy: victim! but of who? Greenfyre’s post#29 convinces me more than ever that he was not ‘dismissed’ by the BBC for anti-AGW statements.