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

g hall wrote:-

Besoeker posted he could spot a difference I merely asked him what it was however if you know it you tell us

No, YOU asked the question first and
Yes - I did answer it.

Now - YOU tell us whether YOU can see the difference.

Mpkd, you wrote in post 34.

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

On the basis of your previous emphatic denials of the documented truth of the Climate Coalition funding certain scientists thro’ ubiquitous US ‘Institutes’, I took this statement to mean the usual denialist paranoid conspiracy theory that government-funded scientists doctor their results to please the funders.

I have shown that this is completely false in govt. funded research by two pieces of evidence :-

a. In the USA the research published by govt. funding, far from supporting the Dubya line, actually supported a very Inconvenient Truth

b. By publishing in respected peer-reviewed journals, these conclusions, if doctored, would have been quickly exposed (it is a fundamental basis of ? Popper’s scientific reasoning that results should be duplicated independently)

I have always believed that work of the scientists funded indirectly by the likes of he ClimateCoalition is suspect and when they have published in a very few cases in reputable journals, their work hasn't been validated - probably because they they are corupting their conclusions to please their funders.
Furthermore, I have alsways believed that govt. & independently funded scientists in the CC area haven't corrupted their conclusions because this would quickly be exposed and would be career death for them.
So, I don't see that I have changed my mind.


So that’s you shot down in flames.

The rest of your post ~49 is wriggling & you know it.

Bellamy (76) is essentially a botanist is he not?

Gregory LF wrote:-

Bellamy (76) is essentially a botanist is he not?

I believe so - and well respected in Botany also.

But his ignominious foray into a subject (GW) for which he had little experience is a salutary lesson to all.

YCHTT,

You wrote :-
And you're basing that on what exactly ?

A load of sites which are seeking to create an illusion of confusion over his motives for leaving ?

You are misunderstanding the situation.

I, and others, including those ‘loads of sites’ aren’t creating an :-

illusion of confusion over his motives for leaving ? (my addition -the BBC)

We, at least I, am saying firstly that he didn’t ‘leave’ the BBC – by his own admission he thought he had been ‘dropped’ by the BBC.
Secondly, I/we say the ‘confusion’ has been created by his own different suggestions as to why he was ‘dropped’.

It may help if you re-visit the timelines again:-

1967 – when he first says he campaigned against ‘cutting down the rainforests’. (From Guardian interview 2002 & Express interview)
1989 – In his book The Greenhouse Effect[3] Bellamy wrote:

"The profligate demands of humankind are causing far reaching changes to the atmosphere of planet Earth, of this there is no doubt. Earth's temperature is showing an upward swing, the so-called greenhouse effect, now a subject of international concern. The greenhouse effect may melt the glaciers and ice caps of the world causing the sea to rise and flood many of our great cities and much of our best farmland." (Wiki)

1994 - was the last time he said he did a TV series for the BBC. (From the Guardian interview in 2002).

1996 – He criticised wind farms on Blue Peter & published anti-GW ( from the Express interview interview).

So you see his dates are now inconsistent.

1997 – he stood against John Major . (His other ‘reason’ for being dropped by the BBC (from Guardian 2002)).

2004 – In a letter to the Mail, he declares AGW ‘poppycock’ and puts forward the hypothesis that glaciers are retreating Worldwide. (Wiki)
2004 – George Monbiot clearly shows Bellamy’s data sources unreliable, (Wiki)
2005 – Bellamy declares he is stepping back from the AGW debate in a letter to the times ….

Now you can continue to take apart all of his interviews and letters but the fundamental fact is that he is muddled in his thinking.

Was he dropped by the BBC – probably, but not in 1994
Why was he dropped – who knows. The logic is against his supposed Anti- AGWviews since it was only in 2004 he clearly says that. Of course, if you want to conflate anti-wind farms with anti-AGW then that’s your prerogative but probably not shared by others.

Bottom line for me is that the BBC change presenters for many reasons, most not openly stated.

I’ve only tried to make the point that David Bellamy is not consistent in his own statements and it is therefore risky to build some sort of BBC conspiracy against him.

Originally Posted by Clippo

Gregory LF wrote:-


I believe so - and well respected in Botany also.

But his ignominious foray into a subject (GW) for which he had little experience is a salutary lesson to all.

Most would say that being a world reknowned Botanist would give him more than enough entitlement to state how he sees your corrupt mmgw,cc game wouldn't it?
Besides,aren't the plants of the Earth the first to show changes around and within them?

Originally Posted by Clippo

Keyser Soze wrote:-


You seem to have a problem reading & understanding information that is clearly in the public domain.
All I have done is pointed out some discrepancies in his story - that Dr Bellamy has given 2 different reasons for his apparent dismissal from the BBC.
(Actually, from my link he gives 2 possible reasons so that's 3 so far). Such inconsistencies don't engender confidence in any other of his utterances - perhaps they get garbled leaking out of his beard.

What will the reasons be for the BBC spat in his next interview ?

PS nice to see you back Besoeker - your commonsense has been sorely missed.

Care to say how many reasons we would all be allowed if kept under your facist styled Dictatorship?

Anyone should be allowed to have as many reasons as they wish to have when making a decision,(this is not allowed in the facist society).