Come out of your hiding place David Bellamy, we need your input on climate change.?

Answer 1

Ask and you shall recieve....

"I am happy to be branded a heretic because throughout history heretics have stood up against dogma based on the bigotry of vested interests. But I don’t like being smeared as a denier because deniers don’t believe in facts. The truth is that there are no facts that link the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide with imminent catastrophic global warming"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2709551.ece

.
.

Answer 2

I have a lot of respect for David Bellamy even though I don't agree with his past position on global warming.

For the past couple of years he has been very quiet on the subject of global warming having "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming" in 2005. He recently co-authored a report, I beleive it was for the UK's Institute of Civil Engineers, in which he questioned that levels of atmospheric CO2 would double. His views now are very different from those he held a few years ago when he questioned whether humans were able to inluence the climate at all.

He made an unfortunate error in which he obtained information from Prof Fred Singer. Singer is a well known climate sceptic who makes many unsupported and inaccurate claims about global warming. Bellamy published a report citing facts and figures from Singer, the report was immediately trashed and consequently Bellamy lost a lot of credibility and was ostracised by many of the scienticic and natural associations with which he was involved.

This wasn't the first time Bellamy had made such an error of judgement and I suspect now that the reason he's unwilling to involve himself any further in the climate change debate is bacause the sources upon which he based his arguments are known to be wrong.

Answer 3

David Bellamy could desire to have made some rash comments in that respected and independent medical organ the each and on a daily basis Mail, on the subject of a concern that became into by no skill his container in the 1st place - climatology. He probable knew slightly approximately Milankovitch cycles and geological outgassing and being by and great a botanist became into truly swayed via the thought better CO2 ranges could be stable for flowers (although in certainty it is merely actual for vegetation bedded in soil that has an abundance of subsurface food - ie stable for fertilised crop yields, not so stable for the rainforests.) i think of perchance he has considering the fact that recognized his mistake and perchance seeks a manner of growing to be amends. i'm uncertain if he nevertheless keeps his anthropogenic GW denialist stance. He has been quoted as announcing that he has 'withdrawn from the communicate' on international warming. although he's an outspoken opponent of windfarm progression - that are a mandatory skill of lowering fossil gasoline utilization. i'm fascinated to make certain what the effect of his question is and any added responses he provides, to make certain the quantity to which his place has replaced. although he has muddied the waters in the international warming debate, his contribution to the sphere of conservation and elevating public understanding of conservation themes over 4 many years is significant and he's to be respected for that, a minimum of, whether he has misplaced the plot related to international warming. On stability he has executed lots extra stable than harm in the time of his life.

Answer 4

David Bellamy is a very engaging and likeable man. He is not an idiot, but neither is he a climatologist. He is a botanist with interests in ecological issues. He made a number of statements on global warming causes which proved to be wrong, and which he subsequently withdrew, but he still has views on the causes of global warming that are inaccurate and poorly supported.

Answer 5

OK, if I must.
Whats your question friend ?

Edit, having met Fred Singer and having read countless of his "assertions", I rather quickly discounted him as a serious source of information nor of useful scientific opinion. Sometimes we have to make our own judgements based not on a strict mathematical function but, as the lawyers would say, the balance of probability. Serious scientists may agree or disagree on details but often agree on the general direction and thus the general conclusion. I dont class FS as a serious scientist.

Answer 6

The man's a buffoon - always was always will be. Why do we need the input of an idiot.

The trick with idiots is not to argue with them just nod along - give them a trinket or honourary degree and pack them off into media oblivion. The longer you argue the longer the controversy remains in the papers and the more oxygen you grant them.

We need DB's input like a rape victim need's a cuddle from ted bundy.

Answer 7

He can't.
The government have paid him off to side step this question!!

Answer 8

is he still alife...... yes come on out