Botanist and environmentalist David Bellamy was a relatively successful broadcaster until 1994 when his broadcasting career tanked. More recently he has been a climate change / global warming Denier who got some attention when some sloppy writing on his part led to a major new Denier myth.
Now we learn that Bellamy is the new Denier martyr because he was the victim of a vicious witch hunt by Enviro-Nazis Global Warming storm troopers. In the Daily Express where we are told “BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE.” In a nutshell, Bellamy was a “skeptic” so the BBC tossed him out.
Interesting. Just one or two problems with this story.
For one thing Bellamy’s career tanked in 1994, a dozen years before Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” Long before 99% of the media had even heard of climate change, much less had any sort of official or unofficial policy or attitude about it.
Are we being asked to believe that the BBC was so forward thinking as to be suppressing climate skepticism in 1994, while at the same time not actually producing any programing advocating climate science, or giving it any particular attention in the news cycle? Was it some sort of passive aggressive Draconian indifference then? Is that the suggestion?
Right.
Soldiering on.
In the article Bellamy alleges that his fall from grace with the BBC was due to denouncing wind farms on an episode of Blue Peter and having a written an article declaring climate change to be “poppycock.”
Trouble is, he says that was 1996, two years after his BBC career was effectively over.
Another puzzling thing is that at different times Bellamy gives different reasons for BBC’s apparent dissatisfaction. The Blue Peter program is somewhat consistent, but his stance on climate is not.
In a Jun 7 2008 interview with the Liverpool Daily Post it was “my stance on having an anti-EU referendum was unpopular with TV bosses,” no mention of it at all in a Times interview a year ago, and in a 2002 Guardian interview it was because he stood against John Major for the anti-European Referendum party:
“In some ways it was probably the most stupid thing I ever did because I’m sure that if I have been banned from television, that’s why. I used to be on Blue Peter and all those things, regularly, and it all, pffffft, stopped.”
But even then the script didn’t match. As the interviewer observes, his stand against Major was in 1997 and Bellamy’s BBC career was over in 1994.
Gee, some inconsistencies in a Denier narrative – how unusual.
One other problem with the story is that Bellamy clearly wasn’t a Denier/Skeptic in 1994 (or 1996, or 1997). In 1989 he wrote a forward to the book The Greenhouse Effect in which he says ” … there is no doubt. Earth’s temperature is showing an upward swing, the so-called greenhouse effect …” After that I can find no mention of Bellamy and climate for over a decade.
It isn’t until 2004 that “Bellamy the Denier” actually appears on stage in a Daily Mail piece. In fact this would appear to be the “poppycock” article that he now thinks he wrote in 1996, 2 years after the BBC started shunning him. Aside, like all the Denier dreck the article is full of unsubstantiated and wildly inaccurate nonsense.
The response to his article suggests this stance is new for Bellamy.
UPDATE Mar 13/09 In this 2004 article Bellamy William Connolley states that “…seems in some danger of turning into a septic.” (emphasis added).
“…turning into …”, not ‘has been for a decade’.
Then it is only in 2005 that various environmental organizations
distance themselves from him because of his “new” stance on climate. A Telegraph interview that same year refers to his recent conversion to Denierism, and Denier sites from 2007 report him as “recently converted to skepticism.”
To sum up: in 1996/1997 David Bellamy ran against John Major and had anti-EU sympathies which caused a BBC that did not give a damn about climate change to dismiss him in 1994 for opinions on climate that he would not hold until some time in 2003/2004 and for an article that he would not write until 2004. That Damn BBC, always so far ahead of the curve!
Which is about as coherent and fact filled as Denierism ever gets.
In all likelihood this is the sad and undignified denouement to what was the honourable and enviable career of a committed environmentalist. It is just too bad that the jackals and vultures of the media and the Denialosphere have used it for their own venal purposes and could not instead have let this tragic farce play out in private.
UPDATE: 2 Apr 2009 David Bellamy is at it again, and has been thoroughly vivesected by George Monbiot with “Bellamy the Bearded Bungler doesn’t disappoint.”
——
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 33 … still no evidence.
1As I discuss here I do not use the term “Denier” to refer to all climate change doubters. Those who thoughtfully and intelligently address the facts I call ’skeptics’.
Those who irrationally deny the existence of the science and instead propagate the lies and distortions such as those discussed above and linked to the right under “Debunking Denier Nonsense” are “Deniers”.
The choice of the correct term is based on their actions, not their conclusions.
IMAGE CREDITS:
Small point – the GGWS was produced by Martin Durkin and aired by Channel 4, not the BBC.
I actually feel quite sorry for Bellamy. I can remember some of his broadcasts from his Blue Peter days – his enthusiasm probably played a major part in increasing environmental awareness in the UK. Your last sentence sums up my feelings precisely.
—-
David Bellamy: victim! but of who? | CommentURL.com…
\r\nMore recently he has been a climate change / global warming Denier who go…
Hi Mike, thanks for the credit and the link back on account of the use of my photo. However, this isn’t one of my pictures that is licensed for re-use, on Flickr it is marked ‘All rights reserved’. Normally I wouldn’t worry so much, but it is a picture of my dad – I’m not sure he even knows it is up on my Flickr stream, let alone being re-used elsewhere. I’d really appreciate it if you could remove the photo, thanks. All the best, Martin
—-
Hi Mike, thanks, much appreciated.
[…] Posted by Clippo David Bellamy: victim! but of who? From :- David Bellamy: victim! but of who? Greenfyres The old fella is obviously losing his marbles. He’s not the only one is he […]
Hello greenfyre
I wonder if there is a simpler explanation for this.
In the 2002 Guardian article, Mr Bellamy does mention of himself having been “too outspoken”. Other phrases to note:
“he’s railing against all forms of political correctness”
“Bellamy is most disappointed by today’s green groups. He rages against the failings of the pressure groups that have become corporates”
“What the hell have Greenpeace and WWF done? They are paid very good salaries and they float around the world saying, ‘We are helping the world,’ but they haven’t.”
If you now move the above forward 6 years, when Greenpeace and WWF and the “green groups” are all fighting climate change; [1] the BBC is giving the issue an enormous coverage [2]; and to be against that is very much politically incorrect [3] , you have the perfect environment for Mr Bellamy to believe that the BBC is not inviting him back because of his global warming skepticism. [4]
The above makes sense even if not all dates coincide. It’s an interview after all, and to the Daily Express of all newspapers, so there is so much one can expect in terms of standards of accuracy and consistency, without having to call in the “Denier” insult. [5]
—-
Omnologos (spectacular choice of name, by the way): Were Bellamy’s only connection with being what Mike calls a “Denier” his claim that the BBC shunned him, your argument might make sense. However, Bellamy has routinely stuck to the same tactics Deniers use.
The most absurd example was covered in both of the links in Mike’s first paragraph — he uncritically got information that confirmed his biases from a Lyndon LaRouche publication (known crackpots and conspiracy theorists), itself citing notorious Denier S. Fred Singer (who himself got pretty much all of the information wrong), then made a typo while recording it (so “55% of 625” became “555 of 625”), amplifying the scale of the error, and then, when confronted about it, refused to correct it. This is not the behaviour of an honest scientist or skeptic, but rather fall firmly in the Denier camp.
Of all people, Monbiot summed it up best:
It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in the palm of your hand. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world’s most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals. You must, if you are David Bellamy, embrace instead the claims of an eccentric former architect, which are based on what appears to be a non-existent data set. And you must do all this while calling yourself a scientist.
[…] David Bellamy | Media | The Guardian and that horrible excuse for an "expose": David Bellamy: victim! but of who? Greenfyres are the ones inferring his TV career was "over" (despite the fact he appeared on Blue […]
A few more sources supporting Mike’s conclusions can be found in the recent Monbiot column.
Good luck getting someone who parrots Bellamy to read Monbiot, though. You may have better luck extracing the source material and delivering it directly.
Nice to see that Monbiot points back here at the end of his article, though.
[…] https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/david-bellamy-victim-but-of-who/ […]
[…] https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/david-bellamy-victim-but-of-who/ […]
DELETED
Posting the same comment in two entirely different threads is spamming.
Besides which, comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change belong in the “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread.
S2
Everything posted by John O’Sulllivan is completely wrong and dishonest. It is this type of behaviour which should be controlled.
Commenter above: Is this the John O’Sullivan – Editor at Large of the National Review?
If so, shouldn’t you declare your position with your publication?
http://author.nationalreview.com/?q=MjE0NQ==
John O’Sullivan – translation?. Global warming is a fraud. There, there, of course it is, of course it is (waves over men in white coats)
Re. John O’Sullivan deleted for spam, lies and frauds.
In an episode of projection, he also criticized this post’s quote from Monbiot appealing to expert opinion (argument from authority). John was mistaken in this criticism.
We frequently can’t do without appeals to experts and their information. The important thing is to pragmatically and critically evaluate the quality of sources of information when we appeal to authority. This is what Monbiot does when he cites the overwhelming evidence of AGW accepted by the majority of the world’s climate scientists. This is not an error in reasoning – quite the opposite.
In contrast, by appealing to the notoriously irrelevant, industry-funded and anti-science Inhofe’s list of 650 (plus 50), John was the one making a fallacious appeal to authority. He quoted from Robert Scotto, a meteorologist who specializes in quality control for industrial plants. Then as I recall, he cited Dr. Diane Douglas, who has a background in archaeology and is employed by URS corporation (providing professional services for transportation, oil, gas and the nuclear energy industries).
Etc.
Of course, John and this small group of people could be correct in their rejection of AGW in addition to having no climate science qualifications, obvious vested interests, and unusual views about climate science that have no evidentiary basis in the relevant science. But what is the likelihood?
I followed the link you proved where you claim that Bellamy’s career tanked in 1994 and there is no reference to this at all. Not even a hint of it. You say yourself that Bellamy was on Blue Peter in 1996 so I guess he still had a career because he was indeed on the TV.
Finding that your references don’t match your claims and that your own story contradicts itself makes me all the more skeptical.
May I request that you provide actual counts of Bellamy’s TV appearances 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 in order to provide real evidence?
—-
Eh? Perhaps you want to read what the article says in the subheading: You might notice the words “But it has been eight years”. You might also notice that it was written in 2002. 2002-8=?
And going on television on some occasions in 1996 constitutes a TV career?
“that his career was finished (which no one contends, just why).”
…the important point is “when” because it provides some indication of the “why”. I can understand that the “why” is always difficult to determine but I would expect that for a public broadcast, the “when” should be reasonably measurable.
In particular, the important question is how much work Bellamy got from the BBC before his anti-warming article was published and before his anti wind farm views went to air, as compared with the frequency of work he got afterwards.
The entire argument above hinges on this question, without any genuine data. I’d like to see real data.
—-
Bellamy clearly claims that the key comments that got him into trouble occurred in 1996. Your own article explains this, as do your references.
—-
Tel, care to explain why Bellamy for years had claimed it was him running against John Major that caused him being shunned? It’s notably in the Guardian article!
Now that being a climate change contrarian is ‘hot’, he’s blaming his views on windpower and climate change for being ‘banned’.
The man simply can’t handle that others have moved on, and no longer considering him of much interest. Hence his happiness that the deniosphere is embracing him…
—-
“Eight years since he made a TV series”, which says nothing about his career, and certainly nothing to conclude “career tanked” which is asserted above. Many celebrities have an active career without ever making a series of their own, others will do guest appearances but occasionally do their own series.
I’ll repeat the question to keep you guys focussed:
Do you have any actual data about how frequently David Bellamy was on the box during they years 1994 to 1997 that provides some real backing for the “career tanked” assertion?
Something real please, not vague inferences.
—-
You made the “career tanked” assertion, and you made the “dismissed from the BBC” assertion. Can you back these assertions? The ball is in your court.
You now make a further assertion that Bellamy made only 2 appearances in one year, where does this come from?
The wikipedia article details Bellamy’s books but not much about TV appearances, it does not seem useful as a gauge of how much work he was getting from the BBC.
—-
“which caused a BBC that did not give a damn about climate change to dismiss him in 1994 for opinions on climate”
Clearly they did not “dismiss him in 1994” because they still had work for him up to 1996. This is the point I’m making, the article is not consistent with itself.
—-
Bellamy did not make the claim that he was dismissed in 1994, you made that claim.
—-
““BBC SHUNNED ME” will you rtfa for pities sake. ”
Umm, I think he he did. Bellamy – “It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on Blue Peter and I also had an article published in which I described global warming as poppycock…At that point I was still making loads of television programmes and I was enjoying it greatly. Then I suddenly found I was sending in ideas for TV shows and they weren’t getting taken up. I’ve asked around about why I’ve been ignored but I found that people didn’t get back to me.”
Your article – “Are we being asked to believe that the BBC was so forward thinking as to be suppressing climate skepticism in 1994”. We’re only being asked by *you* to believe that his career must have already been dead because his last tv series was in 1994. This doesn’t seem logical. Even at his peak Bellamy wasn’t always making a major series every consecutive year, he does other projects in between – one-off prgrammes, guest appearences, books, working for organisations, occaisionally even actual scientific and environmental work. There doesn’t seem to be any logical reason to believe that because he didn’t do a whole TV series for the BBC in 1995 it proves his career was already dead, as opposed to just spending that year doing other things.
—–
Bellamy is a world thinker not out for money so i trust him over other gods?as they see themselves most of the global warmeing is to get more tax and make some very wealthy people and tax small guy!
—-
Bellamy on Botany was one of the most important Television series i watched as a youngster. Regardless of the changes (or not) I am most dissapointed that I am unable to find the series to show my daughters. his enthusiasm for science was incredible. In my time that series was better than David A and all his “here, in the leaf, in the drop of water…” stuff. I would pay for direction to his series.
Adam…once from Cheltenham
[…] charities have religious origins, and still others aspire to the Papacy “Wildlife groups axe David Bellamy as global warming ‘heretic’,” was one classic headline I remember from last […]