How can David Bellamy be a respected figure in ';saving the planet'; when he is a Climate Change denier?

He has said the following in print mostly in the Daily Mail:





';the link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth';;





global warming is ';a problem that actually doesn't exist';;





and





';climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon, nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels';.





Can we ever know how much damage these articles and interviews have caused? He is quoted by Exxon executives to suggest that ';if even an environmentalist like David Bellamy says global warming isn't happening, then it can't be true';?





The harm done to environmentalism by David Bellamy is incalculable. Yet he is Yahoo Featured Questioner today on saving the planet!





He lost it way back in the 80s. Too many Newts.How can David Bellamy be a respected figure in ';saving the planet'; when he is a Climate Change denier?
Have you considered the possibility that he could be right?


Science is not about dogma, it is about challenging ideas and proving and disproving them.


If you check the amount of carbon dioxyde we humans have dumped in the atmosphere, and check the green house effect that extra gas has, it is much less than the green house effect that just a small humidity change does. And humidity is not under our countrol.





True, if there is a warming going on, human activities are not really helping. But if humans activities have such a small effect on things that seems to be according to some measurment sand studies, then there is another reason for global waming that is NOT under our control! So, even if we stopped using fossil fuels, if we could scrub all the CO2 we ever put out and then some, it may be that the planet will still be getting warmer because this is what it needs to do at this point.





You may disagree with someone, but in order to do so, you need to bring some data to support your views. That is how science works. With data, not opinion.How can David Bellamy be a respected figure in ';saving the planet'; when he is a Climate Change denier?
To Andyr0ck:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas


says that water amounts to 4 times more greenhouse effect than CO2, with CO2 having increased 1/4 due to human activities. Report Abuse

It is strange that scienceguy06 and Andyr0ck have joined Yahoo Answers! on the few days after that question was posted, and that their answer is their ONLY activity EVER. And note that I wrote ';consider the possibility that (Bellamy) could be right';, not that I stated he was. Report Abuse

He is right, so called global warming and cooling have happened many times over the millennia, and we're all still here!! In another hundred years or so, we will be going back to another ice-age and people will be panicking about that!! The world will carry on just fine, stop worrying about things we have no control over, life will go on.
absolutely correct. I would like to hear him say that those comments he made are false.





I also suugest that the solution to the environmental catastrophe we are experiencing is simply to start loving the earth and loving each other. All else follows from this point. Human domination of nature comes from an internal belief that we are separate. The Dalai Lama would state this is dualistic and therefore will cause suffering - as we are seeing. We are not seperate as empirical science would like us to believe - we are one being. Climate change is actually part of the healing process. It is a healthy reaction to show us how out of balance our actions are - and will bring us to the great awakening of unity. Unfortunately, many of us may cease to be as part of this process. But judgement of death is another topic.
David Bellamy may well have made some rash comments in that respected and impartial scientific organ the Daily Mail, concerning a subject that was never his field in the first place - climatology. He probably knew a bit about Milankovitch cycles and geological outgassing and being primarily a botanist was easily swayed by the idea that increased CO2 levels would be good for plant life (though in fact this is only true for plants bedded in soil that has an abundance of subsurface nutrition - ie good for fertilised crop yields, not so good for the rainforests.)





I think perhaps he has since recognised his mistake and maybe seeks a way of making amends. I'm not sure if he still maintains his anthropogenic GW denialist stance. He has been quoted as saying that he has 'withdrawn from the debate' on global warming. Though he is an outspoken opponent of windfarm development - which are a vital means of reducing fossil fuel usage.





I'm interested to see what the outcome of his question is and any further responses he gives, to see the extent to which his position has changed.





Although he has muddied the waters in the global warming debate, his contribution to the field of conservation and raising public awareness of conservation issues over four decades is considerable and he is to be respected for that, at least, even if he has lost the plot regarding global warming. On balance he has done much more good than harm throughout his life.
Because he is right. Global warming is a natural phenomenon and the idea that it is man-made is only a theory, and not even a particularly good theory.





He certainly hasn't denied that the climate is warming or that pollution of the environment is a bad thing, and as one of the worlds most eminent botanists he is naturally very concerned about current levels of pollution.





If the media constantly said that the sky was falling, no doubt most people would believe that too, it doesn't mean that it is a fact, it means that people are gullible.
Technically he could be right - with the constant cycles of warming %26amp; cooling over the earth's development who is to say that the period of warming we are currently in is or isn't a natural phenomenen... in fact it's rather vain of mankind to think we are so powerful that in this way can change the forces of nature that in every other way defeat us.


According to theory it looks as if the pollution we cause potentially could be damaging so it's best to minimise the pollutants we put into the environment, but it's all just theory - no one knows for certain and surely everyone is entitled to their own thoughts so long as they are based on scientific fact.


Leave David Bellamy alone - he's a good bloke %26amp; was probably misquoted anyway.
';climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon...'





That's not denial, he just disputes the link between between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming.
He's actually rescinded his climate change denials I think. They were based on some stats about glacial retreat that were misrepresented because of a simple typo. The stat was that 8% of glaciers were growing. Bellamy read the typoed version that said 80% were growing! In fact, 92% are receding. He was most embarrassed and quickly shut up when the reality came out.
sounds like bull to me , lets lynch the old bastard
He's not respected by me any more!! And hasn't been for a while. It's a bit like Bill Oddie making out he's very 'green' at the moment, but still taking money from B%26amp;Q for advertising their wares (many of which are not very Earth friendly).
Hmm..someone pissed in your coffee. Lighten up, the man has done SO MUCH more than you could ever imagine doing!
Is David Bellamy George W in a fat suit.





Look closely now.....
He really does need to go see The Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore. Of course fosil fuels damage the climate and so do humans
He's right. It's a myth to attempt to stop the Americans using all the oil.
The progress of science rests on the principle of falsificationism. It is therefore the role of every good scientist to be a skeptic, even about their own results.
He isn't, hes a loon. Talks a load of 'poppycock' and hangs around with his Nuclear mates who are intent on leaving 1000 generations with our toxic waste legacy. All for 40 years of carbon intensive electricity (if you include uraniums mining, transportation and refining). Bellamy once had a voice, now in more ways than one hes lost it!
It's very interesting to see how many people are defending Bellamy. One, in particular, grabbed my attention; Vincent G, who was claiming that 'science is about data, not opinion'. Well, it appears he is arguing a case on opinion. He said: 'have you ever thought he may be right?'. Yes, the idea has been entertained. We must ask that question, otherwise, we are simply going on opinion. Science must accept the results of proven research, even if they go against what we thought was going to be the case. Points must be referenced and research must be peer-reviewed. It is accepted that this is the only may we can denounce a piece of research; if the rest of the 'people in the know' (ie scientists, specialising in that field) agree. There was an exchange with George Monbiot that highlighted Bellamy's errors. Bellamy was quoting a former architect's refuted ideas, not a scientist or a particular piece of research. Whilst i don't necessarily believe he is in the pockets of some hideous corporation with evil on their mind, i do believe he is mistaken.





Vincent, do you have any sources for the data you quoted, please?
Steel Lady, Vincent G, I am a Climatologist and while I respect your opinions they are based on ignorance.





I work at the Tyndall Centre at UEA, Norwich and mine and thousands of other scientists careers are based on the overwhelming data collected so far that completely refutes David Bellamy's statements.





The data is out there, unfortunately mostly in proper peer reviewed science papers, not on your average TV screen/newspaper.





David Bellamy has denied science fact for years. He shows signs of changing. You will too if you seek the science - it will not come to you as powers with vested interest strive to keep the masses ignorant.





The quickest and best way to judge for yourselves? See


http://www.climatecrisis.net/


And watch the movie.


Please. It will give you at least something to think about.