Bellamy: Twenty-Eight Years on TV, Then Blackballed for Challenging AGW (PJM Exclusive)
In 1960, I became a professor at Durham University in England. I taught botany to undergraduates and led research teams at Masters, Ph.D., and postdoctoral levels. Between 1969 and 1996, I was a TV personality. The BBC, rapidly followed by ITV, gave me free rein to inform the world about botany, natural history, and the environment.
My media popularity brought me many accolades: I was only the second person to have his photo on the cover of Nature. (Beaten to this position by Charles Darwin, no less!) The caption? “Science is Fun.”
Back in those days, it was. I regularly got my research papers published in Nature, that august journal.
I also was invited to become trustee, president, vice president, or patron of over 30 organizations, including: WWF, Wildlife Trusts, YHA, Population Concern, Marine Conservation Society, Coral Cay Conservation, Galapagos Conservation Trust, Plantlife, and BTCV. I was also bestowed with media and conservation awards from around the world, including the Dutch Order of the Golden Ark, BAFTA’s Richard Dimbleby Award, and the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award for Underwater Research.
Then the global warming rot set in.
Two media colleagues, Julian Pettifer and Robin Page, were publicly sacked by the BBC — in essence, because they could no longer be viewed as non-biased in their opinions.
I can only only assume that, to them, I also fell into that category — because from that point on my career on TV came to an abrupt end. Despite my resume of approximately 400 TV shows.
Since that time onwards, anyone who sticks their head out for the anti-wind power or anti-global warming arguments has been subject to vilification, never scientific debate.
But I am proud to carry on, sticking my head out for both.
Im glad to see you, Dr Bellamy have guts like Dr John Coleman, Lord Christopher Muncton, and several other voices, especially the leaker of this information. The REAL story of this should be that the MEDIA worldwide is also part of the PROBLEM. Too many so called “doctors” “scientists” etc are nothing more than well paid(with tax dollars) whores for a political ideology that has long been proven worthless. ALWHORE was going to Copenhagen for what? To “shake Hands” for 1.2 million? Thats what a whore does, exchanges her body for money. ALWHORE has exchanged his brain for GAIA and has done so without having any expertise in the subject area. Its nice to see there are scientists like Dr Hawkins,Dr Bellamy and Dr Coleman who actually are scientists.
I’m glad PJM has an ‘exclusive’- but Dr Bellamy’s story ought to be disseminated far and wide. He is representative of many, many dedicated scientists who have been blacklisted by the warmmongers and their propaganda organs.
It’s always nice to see people stick to their guns on what is right, not what is popular.
Another of PJM’s unimpeachable sources! (Like the one who also denies the danger of second-hand smoke — while taking money from the tobacco industry.) Check him out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy
David J. Bellamy almost certainly sacrificed huge sums of money by coming out against the global warming advocates. He was in a perfect position to add significantly to his bank account balance. Ballamy could have given countless well-remunerated speeches and invited to lavish conferences serving the best food and beverages. They would have made sure to turn the already well-known scientist into a true superstar. He might have even become a household name.
Many people who watched Prof Bellamy on television admired his knowledge and enthusiasm and respect his views on scientific matters. These people will listen to his opinions, even if they disagree with him. If he is able to criticise the AGW theoryby drawing attention to its scientific shortcomings and lack of physical justification, it will not be regarded as politically motivated, but rather as nothing more than proper criticism of a theory which has not been proven and whose adherents are emotionally attached to its promulgation for reasons of either emotional attachment or, perhaps, more ulterior partisan political reasons.
But…
no matter how many scientists DO speak against the BIG LIE…the internationalist subversives do not relent.
That’s what the totalitarians do, and this time it’s not matter of Cambodia or Russia, Cuba or North Korea…this time it’s America, and the whole world.
4. Anonymous demonstrates the modern climate alarmist tactic: when you don’t have data, attack the messenger.
#4
And what are YOUR sources, since all the data on which the ideology of global warming had been extrapolated have been deleted ?
Your only “source” are data that have been invented and manipulated.
And even if you had such data, can you show me the correlation index between CO2 and an increase of temperatures ?
And, can you prove that NO OTHER factor has a correlation value identical, or superior, to that ?
Go back to reading Karl Marx sci-fi.
I wonder how many other scientists have had their careers ruined because of this climate cabal?
@4 “Another of PJM’s unimpeachable sources!”
Oh sweet Moses — the standard ad hominem tactic. Yawn. Warm-mongers desperately need a new playbook.
Keep up the good work Dr. Bellamy, we are counting on you.
I’m not sure whats worse, the dishonest ad-hom attacks or that those who use them think its clever and some how makes a point.
Good scientists have had their names ruined because of frauds and charlatans.
Many thanks to Professor Bellamy for his courage.
# 7 Sherab:
The Guardian is at the forefront of the Big Extortion Scam, together with the BBC. They have the Bangladeshi Finance Minister asking the developed world to take in the migrants from low-lying coastal areas because the country can’t cope with their high birth rate and the climate change brought about by the rich West:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/30/rich-west-climate-change
Then they have this African guy making the same extortionist demands in a more convoluted lingo:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/05/africa-copenhagen-climate-change
I posted two comments on the Guardian site, none of which went thru.
Here they are:
1. “First the Bangladeshi guy asking me to take care/pay for the irresponsible reproductive lifestyle of his countrymen (men, not women; women have no say in the system).
Now comes this African guy who speaks in the rebarbative lingo of the well-oiled, well-fed UN commissar.
What’s next, a North Korean member of the Polit Bureau blaming the developed world for the labor camps and famine in North Korea? (I kind of see it coming, though.)
Mr Gettu, I don’t owe “Africa” anything, not a penny. My ancestors lived, only 200 years ago, in mud and straw dwellings, most of them underground, were probably serfs, and burnt as little as they could, mostly corn husks, ’cause they were taxed on the amount of smoke that came out of their chimney, taxes that went into the coffers of the Sultan in Istanbul.
So there. Stop propagandizing/begging for money to keep your privileged lifestyle up.
And stop speaking in the name of “Africa.” It’s too varied and complex.
As any muticulturalist, non-essentialist academic can tell you, “Africa” is a colonialist construct meant to annihilate its diversity to better dominate it.
You got to love it when a self-serving African borrows the language of his masters.”
2. “”liberalexpat: All the figures show that Africans and inhabitants of the rest of the Third World are responsible for a very small faction of the CO2 emissions of those in the rich countries in per capita terms. Even the massive drift to the cities has not made a dent in this.”
I used to live in a commie Third World European, Soviet satellite country that forced rapid industralization on its mostly rural populace, according to Marxist/Leninist doctrinal demands. I learned early on, in grade school, that industrialization was good, a necessary step in the liberation of mankind from need, including the “primitive” populations in Africa. Yeah, Marx and Engels used that word; they were not bound by political correctness back then.
So how are you going to quantify my debt to “global warming” as opposed to a Brit’s or a Frenchman’s or an American’s? How about my friend, who hails from a Siberian town just across from Alaska, where everything was, and still is, industrial, deeply polluting, labor-intense, harsh and prone to vodka-induced comas after hours?
How, exactly, are you going to apportion that carbon debt? By what criteria? Are folks in Tierra del Fuego or in Lapland guilty of burning more fossil fuel throughout the year because it’s colder and they wouldn’t survive otherwise?
Would you give Albania a break for its commie, autarchic leaders’ keeping its populace in the Middle Ages, with almost zero industrialization/ consumption other than feeding off their only source of livelihood, their sheep–major contributors to the methane in the atmosphere thru their burping, according to the latest “studies”?”"
The notion of “responsibility” for the amount of gas one individual or whole populations generate in living the lives that were given to them by dint of being born into this world is so absurd as to defy even reasoned criticism.
#4 Anonymous
Wikipedia is a left-wing farce of information. Every moderator allowed on the site has to pass the progressive test. Thus, everything you read there must be viewed as though it was being told to you by someone like Barack Obama or Bill Clinton.
#15 and #4
Second. I have someplace in my file on Climategate the name of the moderator who removes unwanted* postings from Wikcedpedia’s Global Warming topic
*unwanted: any evidence of contradictory consensus or research. perhaps tw morning i’ll dig it up and add it to my page on Climategate
Wikipedia has editors who delete and edit any entry critical of AGW. It’s about as reliable a source as Pravda’s reporting on the 1955 Soviet harvest.
Of course, anon believes what Wiki tells him. He’s desperately clinging to his religion. Also, he’s a rube, an easy mark.
The burden of proof does not lie with those who question AGW. It lies with those who would reorder the global economy. Lying, hiding and distorting the data, ruining the careers of scientists with doubts – sorry, anon. it’s all falling apart.
AGW will soon be sleeping with the fishes – or should I say with the dead polar bears?
I predict that Al Gore’s sci-fi flick will one day be a cult classic like “Reefer Madness.” Undergrads will watch it and marvel that people actually took this stuff seriously back in the day.
What is not funny that Prof. Bellamy and other honest scientists had to suffer harm to their careers and reputations before the truth came to light.
@16
That would be one William Connolley. He was a mid-level drone at the British Antarctic Survey but his boss or his boss’s boss or his boss’s boss’s boss are seemingly bereft of any worthy mention on wicked-pedia. Somehow he merits his own page – maybe because he’s an admin there.
For a nice comparison of how biased it is against AGW skeptics, compare the pages for Naomi Oreskes and Fred Singer. Oreskes was mentioned in the Goracle’s sci-fi film and judging by her “selected awards, honors and fellowships”, you’d think she was in line for a Nobel Prize. Singer is basically portrayed as a crackpot who believes in Martians. The reality is that Oreskes’ paper was thoroughly discredited and Singer is one of the great scientists of the 20th century.
But you’d never know it by reading wikipedia.
13. Phranc:
I’m not sure whats worse, the dishonest ad-hom attacks or that those who use them think its clever and some how makes a point.
Good scientists have had their names ruined because of frauds and charlatans.
~~~
??? I’m not sure if you’re being serious or sarcastic. I’d seriously suggest you go read up on Semmelweiss before you seriously try to make a case about how no scientist has had his life or career destroyed because of frauds, charlatans and skeptics. How he was treated was an atrocity.
the AGW crowd invited Henrik Svensmark to a conference, JUST to mock him in an attempt to put an end to his heretical experiments and any credibility in the climate field. Fortunately for him, CERN (think HADRON collider) was intrigued enough by his results that they upgraded his “SKY” experiment to “CLOUD”, and now “CLOUD II”.
People outside of Canada should know of Gerry Nicholls. He is seen to be troublesome by the current Canadian government, because he points out the change in Stephen Harper from the days he wasn’t a Member of Parliament, until today.
So, it boils down to the same thing: You are a threat because you no longer see things the same way, ergo you must be dealt with. I know I am mixing metaphors, but the sword cuts two ways.
Stephen Harper justifies himself, but the same can be said about those who blackballed Bellamy.
The Global Warming Cult is waiting for their Harpy Egg to hatch to eat them; it means the world is going to end–for them. Cultists are not scientists, but they have been blurred thanks to this Global Warming doomsday turd.
19. ked5:
I think you misread my post. I wholeheartedly agree that a good number of good scientists have been ruined by these frauds.
Dunno what I think about this. It’s bonkers to be classifying people on the basis of where they stand on a single issue. I don’t think I know ANYBODY who doesn’t believe in something daft, or have some bee in their bonnet about something (seriously – think about it. pick the most sensible, rational person you know and I guarantee you’ll find some point of view that they hang on to well beyond the boundaries of reason). Usually it’s harmless – just part of being human.
That said, how would I feel about someone who believed the literal word of genesis and considered the theory of evolution to be part of a nefarious nazi eugenics plot getting funding to produce science documentaries? I probably wouldn’t be super-thrilled about it. So I’m not sure I’ve got a consistent position worked out.
It’s probably worth mentioning that the UK guardian has pointed out that bellamy stopped making TV shows ten years before he made any public statement against the AGW theory. So “I can only assume” there’s a bit more to it than he suggests in this article.
To leap into the nature doco genre for a second – I rescued a stray cat a few weeks ago (she’s staying with me for christmas – the RSPCA’s flat-out dealing with kittens at the moment). I was worried that she might be pregnant, the way she was putting on weight. But this morning it became abundantly clear that she’s in heat (I’m in the southern hemisphere, for those who might be puzzled). I’ll get her spayed (I have a way 28 days from checking for microchips, apparently) but right now she’s being unbelievably cute – endlessly “brrripping”, flip-flopping on the floor and wanting extra hugs. She’s got more personality than some people I know.
@11 Bozo
“Warm-mongers” I like that one. Did you make that one up?
As for this story I like that it’s here but I would really like to see a lot more to this post than just a half page background. Any future articles or details coming?
Thank you sir. Unfortunately, when you go against the new liberal religion, you’ll get hammered for being an apostate.
http://thevailspot.blogspot.com
# 4 The Anti semitic, ID Stealing, MULTI Nicking,Mohammedan Arab MOHO/Anonymous/etc/etc/etc is just doing what he always does and that is spread anti Western, anti Christian, antisemitic hate. His sole purpose on posting on PJM is to conduct soft ‘Jihad’ against all those he perceives as Islam’s enemies and who know too much about his CULT by Tu quoque ,ad hominem attacks and DIVERSIONS.
God bless you, sir.
Bellamy stopped appearing on TV in 1994. He didn’t come out as a global warming skepic until 2004. You do the math.
I agree that Wiki has an unwritten mission statement. Especially when it comes to climate science and progressive/socialist politics but it’s still a useful place for rock ‘n roll history. Where else can I get album covers for my old records that I rip and put on my iPod?
#15 ditto. #17 Donna you have nailed it, let us not forget the burden of proof is on the ‘chicken littles’. And #25 Rich, no truer words have been spoken. Environmentalism is the new faith-based religion of the left/’progressives’. BTW a good source of science-based opinion and assessment can be found at Dr. Roy Spencer’s site, http://www.drroyspencer.com, that is if you dare to have an open mind and drop all of the agendas.
Consensus is all the climatevangelists have.
They even tell you that in their literature.
See:
FRUIT OF THE POISON TREE, TARTS FROM THE POISON FRUIT
http://naturalfake.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/fruit-of-the-poison-tree-tarts-from-the-poison-fruit/
Let’s face it, this is how you reach consensus. There is little doubt what’s been done and it’s really important to understand how it was done. Can anyone watch the Democrats, during the health care debate in the Senate, and not recognize similar tactics at hand?
Any time someone refuses to supply the data used in their conclusions a red flag should go up. When we look at the science, if you want to call it that, of global warming, there’s been a lot of refusal going on. How long will it take for the house of cards to collapse?
Bellamy’s last TV program was in 1994.
His first statement against Global Warming was in 2004. Please give any statement he made against Global Warming in the 90′s.
In 2002, he said that his campaign again John Major for the Referendum party in 1997 screwed his television career.
Donna said, “I predict that Al Gore’s sci-fi flick will one day be a cult classic like “Reefer Madness.” Undergrads will watch it and marvel that people actually took this stuff seriously back in the day.”
Well said, but I would go a little further and predict that in the future, AGW will be viewed as one of the greatest scientific frauds of all time.
One thing I found, a good piece back, is that in on-line chitter-chatter it is helpful to know the Classic Fallacies
I keep a hand reference to these handy
on my index page : http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
By far the most common are
1. ridicule
2. ad populum
3. ad hominem
These are the tools of propaganda. Teach your friends to recognize them for what they are. It’s important.
Oh! yes: I did cross referent thru my files to find the name of the editor on wickedpaedia for Climate Fraud: William Connolley
here are url to a couple articles worth reading:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjU1ZDBhOGExOWRlNzc5ZDcwOTUxZWM3MWU2Mjc5MGE=
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx
Does this think accept url coding? ( I’m new here –Mike ) .
Another of PJM’s unimpeachable sources! (Like the one who also denies the danger of second-hand smoke — while taking money from the tobacco industry.) Check him out:
Ah, the standard retort of members of the environmetalism faith. They discredit any contrary research as being funded by the oil/gas/power industries at the same time they have managed to make a good living off of scaring people with questionable science.
If it’s fair to criticize someone for taking research funding from an industry, then it’s equally fair to criticize those who make their livings from the other side of the controversy.
Phil Jones, director of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit that’s at the heart of the Climategate scandal, has been the recipient or co-recipient of $19 million in grants since 2000, more than tripling the funding he received in the 1990s. Promoting AGW has been very good for his personal bottom line. Al Gore has made hundreds of millions of dollars promoting AGW. You can’t simply act as though there’s money and rewards only on one side of the isse.
It’s not just the direct funding that flows if you’re a true believer. The careers of most people in that part of the scientific world would be harmed if they dissented, now that AGW activists control “peer” reviewed journals and tenure committees. As someone has said, believing in AGW is as much a job requirement for climate scientists as believing in God is a job requirement for priests, ministers, imams and rabbis.
Matthew wrote:
pick the most sensible, rational person you know and I guarantee you’ll find some point of view that they hang on to well beyond the boundaries of reason
Matthew, that might be true, but humoring an otherwise rational person with an eccentric belief is not the same as spending huge sums to completely reorder the global economy based on data that is looking increasingly shaky. The scientists involved are not like Aunt Esther who thinks drinking a glass of apple cider vinegar every morning prevents cancer. They are at the very heart of this and so if they’re massaging the data, “hiding the decline,” blacklisting other scientists who disagree with them and refusing to cooperate with FOIA requests, it is foolhardy to just take their word that we have to spend trillions to restructure the entire global economy because dreadful things will happen if we don’t.
Second hand smoke is based on a single study of Japanese wives who lived for years in 900 square foot apartments with heavily smoking husbands.
@4 alGore. Now you can go back to sucking your mother’s toes.
Professor Bellamy can take much comfort in the fact that the history books will treat him well, and it will be the architects of the campaign to discredit him professionally for his skepticism of the faith-based & decidedly un-scientific hokum which is AGW who will be vilified therein. It is the irredeemably corrupted discipline of ‘Climate Science’ which will in the future be seen as discredited & as laughably anti-scientific as the ‘expertise’ of the witnesses who testified to the proven existence of sorcery in the Salem Witch Trials was.
Indeed, Climate Science has already begun to acquire the distinct whiff of academic carrion among those with elite reputations to uphold in more established & more respectable fields; clearly, CS is to legitimate scientific enquiry what astrology is to astronomy, what 19th century phrenology is to neurophysiology.
Mr. Bellamy will someday be heralded for his courage in helping to expose the PT Barnum-style fraud perpetrated by the AGW racketeers of dubious credentials & even more dubious professional ethics, and for having helped steer the duped public away from its credulous naivete about AGW’s scientific legitimacy.
You rock, Doc! And you will rock even more when the historical accounts are written about the this massive pseudoscientific hoax a hundred years hence. Your great-grandchildren will thank you for your principled skepticism and your unyielding defense of scrupulously rational methodology in all endeavours of scientific enquiry. They’ll be proud to carry your name.(Alas, think about all the ribbing the unfortunate progeny of Mssrs. Mann, Hansen & Jones will have to endure,lol!)
The headline reads “Challenging AGW” (which I presume stands for Anti-Global Warming). Shouldn’t it read “Supporting AGW” or “Challenging GW”?
28. Lambert-skeptics are known professionally before they “come out.” You use your head.
Scientists insist that we uncritically defer to them, as people who divine the Trusth. But they are as politically motivated as anyone else.
1.The Amchitka Atomic Tests- “They’ll split the globe.”
People–”They’ll overpopulate the globe.” (The Population Bomb”)
DDT-Ban it now! But in Africa people are dying by the millions while the anti-DDT crowd insist they rely on mosuito proof nets.
28. Lambert-skeptics are known professionally before they “come out.” You use your head.
Scientists insist that we uncritically defer to them, as people who divine the Trusth. But they are as politically motivated as anyone else.
1.The Amchitka Atomic Tests- “They’ll split the globe.”
People–”They’ll overpopulate the globe.” (The Population Bomb”)
DDT-Ban it now! But in Africa people are dying by the millions while the anti-DDT crowd insist they rely on mosuito proof nets.
AGE = Anthropogenic Global Warming
@41 Wazoo
AGW – Anthropogenic Global Warming
Anthropogenic – caused by man
David,
We were just talking about you in the pub last week and how your voice was never heard any more. Your informative nature broadcasts seem to be missed by many if our little gathering is a representative cross section.
The Politically Correct Thought Police may have the upper hand at the moment but the call to arms has been sounded. “We are scientists so that proves we’re right,” the only case the climate change statistics jugglers can argue competently, does not stand up to cross examination.
INT. INTERROGATION ROOM – ON LIGHT FIXTURE –
CLOSE ON BELLAMY
sitting in the chair, head slumped back, staring at the
lights. Perspiration drenches him… drips into his
eyes… he blinks, squints… looks up…
as he shakes his head to clear it… sits up… looks
around. He is alone in the room. He sees, on the desk
before him –
THE IPHONE
which contains the IPCC’s entire AR4, a hated object which has contributed
to the extent of his misery.
BELLAMY
stares at it, transfixed. It’s within his reach. What
will happen if he takes it? Smashes it? Mesmerized,
he reaches out his arm, touches it… picks it up…
stares at it…
And then he rises and hurls it against a wall, smashing
it. It falls to the floor, broken.
PHIL JONES’ VOICE
That won’t help. I have many
others.
Bellamy turns and sees Jones walking toward him from
the open door. When he speaks, his voice is quite
hoarse from screaming. He is weaker than we have seen
him.
BELLAMY
…still… felt good…
Jones gives a small laugh.
JONES
Enjoy your good feelings when you
can. There may not be many more
of them.
He walks briskly to his desk and sits.
JONES
I’ve just received word. There’s
been a disaster. St. Abbs is
a dead zone. An invasion of jelly fish
destroyed all life there. Your life’s
work was for nothing…
except that it led to a successful
climate treaty in Copenhagen.
Bellamy stares at him.
BELLAMY
…don’t… believe you…
JONES
(shrugs, unconcerned)
There is no further need for
information from you… the treaty
passed successfully in spite of your
refusal to help me.
(small smile)
You might have saved yourself a
great deal of torment by yielding
at the beginning.
There is a beat as he stares pensively at Bellamy.
BELLAMY
I… want to see… neutral
authority…
JONES
There is no such person. The consensus
is complete.
(beat)
The word will be that you perished
with your crew while diving at Eyemouth.
No one will ever know that you are here
with us. As you will be, for a long, long
time.
Bellamy stares at him with bleary eyes.
JONES
You do, however, have a choice.
You can live out your life in
misery… held here, subject to my
whims…
He leans in, seductive, beguiling…
JONES
Or you can live in comfort, with
good food and warm clothing…
women as you desire them…
allowed to pursue your nature walks
and botany.
(beat)
I would enjoy debating with you.
You have a keen mind.
He rises, wanders toward Bellamy.
JONES
It’s up to you. A life of ease…
of reflection and intellectual
challenge…
(gesturing around him)
Or this.
BELLAMY
What… must I… do… ?
Jones smiles. His voice is soothing…
irresistible…
JONES
Nothing, really.
(gestures upward)
Just tell me that climate science is sound.
There is a heavy silence. Bellamy slumps in the chair,
staring up at the lights. In the distance, we hear the
SOUND of approaching footsteps. An urgency appears in
Jones’ voice.
JONES
Just say it. The evidence is robust.
No answer.
JONES
This is your last chance… the
guards are coming… don’t be a
stubborn fool…
Bellamy stares up at the light fixture, eyes glazed, not
responding.
JONES
(hissing)
Hurry. You’re running out of time.
The door opens and Richard Black ENTERS, accompanied by two staffers. He surveys the scene.
BLACK
You told me he would be ready to
go.
Jones has to tear his eyes away from Bellamy to address
Black.
JONES
We had some unfinished business.
BLACK
Get him cleaned up. A car is
waiting to take him to the
studio. He’s going to be our
Copenhagen Ace now
that you boys are caught up in scandal.
ON Bellamy
as he stares at Jones, realizing that everything
Jones had said was a ruse… one last desperate effort
to bend Bellamy to his will.
ON Jones
as he returns the look… a complex welter of feelings
overwhelming him… chagrin that Bellamy now
understands… anger at failure… and, in spite of
himself, the beginnings of respect for Bellamy’s
extraordinary courage.
ANGLE – THE GROUP
as BLACK looks from one to the other… curious at the
potent looks.
BLACK
Professor Bellamy… if you will go
with the aides, they’ll take care
of you.
Still holding Jones’ look, Bellamy rises… starts to
lose his balance but holds on… takes deep breaths of
air… straightens himself, and walks close to Jones.
BELLAMY
Global warming is BOLLOX.
Jones stares at him briefly, and then, the slightest
possible nod and smile — in deference to a man he has
come to admire.
Bellamy turns and walks out of the room with the aides.
Jones watches him go. BLACK looks from one to the
other, feeling the charged atmosphere, but completely
out of touch with what has transpired.
That people are demonized by those seeking to demand compliance with the lockstep mindset, is reprehensible. Gore will make billions from the U.S. Cap & Trade (tax) legislation he & his buddies wrote for congress to pass. Its a sham that will allow Gore to reap a ‘cut’ in every carbon trade going through the companies he has invested in. His current wealth from the failed European Cap & Trade scheme, is to be enhanced if he can fool his own countrymen to buy into the scam as well.
But, critics say the oil, gas industries are paying off those who do not by into the AGW theory. Seems to me, green money is just as bad as carbon company money. Perhaps worse since green money is based on taking from all, for no gain or logical reason.
Al is angry the American public did not elect him. After all, he was groomed for that job & felt he deserved it. So, his green industry scam will make them pay for their failure to elect him.
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It makes the planet green. In eighth grade science they taught us this. Today, teachers sell the kids Global Warming & tell the kids Mom & Dad are bad because they caused all of this.
The tactics used to attack those who do not believe, look suspiciously like tactics used by many propagandists of the past for various political schemes. Frightening, isn’t it? If it is not, it should be.
Cause one day, they will come for you!
This brings up another aspect of the climate juggernaut – the fact that it’s sucked the oxygen out of all of the other environmental causes (with the singular exception of opposing nuclear power, which at least in the US seems to be as strong as ever).
California struggles with very real fresh water issues, and what does Arnold focus on? Phony pictures of California’s coast under water.
This is costing the environment in terms of real problems that go unaddressed because of this mass hysteria.
Donna V # 17 has nailed it as another commenter has observed here. The burden of proof should always fall upon the “activist” position. If the need can’t be established beyond reasonable doubts, then there should be no government action or coercion. Majority (51%) dictated liberalism or conservatism is wrong. This is why government’s role needs to be severely limited to those things that nearly everyone agrees upon. Then Obamacare, Cap and Trade and many other freedom sucking government laws and programs would not exist.
But there is another side to this that I am sure few want to accept: That being that activism regarding other things you might feel are very important to you, i.e. environment, smoking, drinking, drugs, abortion, gay marriage etc., etc. would mainly consist of community directed advocacy where you take your chances that you can convince people about your point of view. No more targeting the politicians and the political processes to pass laws that tax and control others. Can everyone live with this?
The interesting thing about Professor Bellamy (and I do grudgingly admire his stance) is that he is true to his beliefs. This is the same David Bellamy who came to Australia, to Tasmania to protest against the building of the Franklin Dam.
The issue of the IPCC and false reports goes back prior to 1996 and pre-Kyoto. The issue that is not getting enough traction is the 1995/96 IPCC report. The reason why this one is so very important is that somebody, probably Professor Santer, removed material from the report after it had been peer-reviewed. The material that was removed did in fact state that there was no basis for believing in AGW. This was agreed in both Madrid and Rome prior to the release of the report, yet the specific paragraphs were missing in the published report. In my view this is very, very, serious.
I think that the removal of material from the 1996 IPCC report was tantamount to the committing fraud, at that point in time. As a result of the removal of that material (so that the report reflected the conclusions of a very small panel of people), Bill Clinton said before Congress “the science was settled”, when in fact the science was anything but settled.
Since that time there has been a concerted effort to drown out the voices of those who have examined the claims of AGW and found them to be without merit. These other scientists, who are in fact a greater number than the warmists, have endured ridicule, stonewalling and silence. At the same time the AGW juggernaut has continued to rattle along, growing in size.
I am not a scientist but I observe what is going on around me. When I see those articles that are nothing more than scaremongering my BS meter starts going nuts. One of the latest articles, that of male polar bears eating their cubs is a good case that indicates how foolish “southerners”, who are in fact ignorant of nature, will offer false information based upon their own lack of credibility. In this case the article featured a “scientist” who had been in the Manitoba region studying the polar bears. The story mentions the group of eco-tourists who had witnessed a male polar bear separating a cub from its mother and then eating the cub. The conclusion by the scientist was that the bears did this when they are hungry, and that global warming was to blame because of the late ice sheet. However, the local Inuit leader, you know the native Indians of the region, stated that this is not the case at all. The truth is, that the polar bear cannibalism is nothing extraordinary. The most likely explanation is that the male removes the cub so that he can mate once again with the cub’s mother. Another possibility is that the cub is not his, that it has come from a mating with another male polar bear…. In other words the conclusion in the article that the polar bears are hungry was based upon false assumptions of the “scientist” and not upon information that was readily available from the Inuit of the region.
Professor Bellamy is a botanist. He understands plants and he understands such wonderful scientific marvels as photosynthesis, which is a process I learned about in science classes, more than 40 years ago. Botanists know more about how nature, and in particular about the food chain than scientists who do computer modeling. My own thoughts on the subject happen to be that my understanding is that plants take in the carbon dioxide and pump out oxygen. If you reduce the carbon dioxide available to the plants then you are in fact going to interfere with a whole lot of processes involved in the food chain.
Canadian Issues:
$10 Billion Dollars & more per Year For a Fraud?
Canadians are interested in results of what is going on about Climategate in Canada! As it has to do with our lives,lifestyle whether or not we are going to be living in a Democracy or under a Dictatorship?
Jim prentice has stated & PM Harper advocates this as well otherwise Prentice wouldn’t be uttering it”Canada will be paying it’s fair share of Carbon Emmissions! To the tune of $10 Billion per year!” Really, we are already $70 Billion in debt thanks to Michael Ignatieff & the Liberals who up’ed the anti to the Canadian debt load on stimulus!
This begs the question where Jim Prentice plans to dig the $10 Billion per year out of? Did somebody say more Tax?
What is so disheartening about that is the fact that now it’s been found that the whole Climate Emission scam has been proven to be Fraudulent as credible Scientests around the world who were previously locked out of putting their work and findings forth by Jones of East Anglia University and the CRU,were pushed out of the picture with thier observations and experiment results on Climate Change found that not only is the earth not heating up in reality it has been cooling since the 1960’s!
How much more fraudulent can this Scientific Data be? The United Nations and the Globalists are using this false Data at Copenhagen, to transfer our wealth to third world countries? Yet Environment Minister Jim Prentice and Prime Minister Stephen Harper feel so generous with Canadian Tax payer dollars that they are willing to toss in $10 Billion per year on the “hot air” that Ban Kai Moon and Pompus PM Gordon Brown and the rest of the Criminal Rogues that are involved in this bogus Carbon Emission Treaty! As the Bible says,”A Fool and his money are soon parted”! To request that PM Harper doesn’t sign the Copenhagen Treaty, causing Canadians to lose their Sovereignty and Freedom email the PM at: pm@pm.gc.ca,Protest Copenhagen Treaty http://www.gopetition.com/online/32485.html
There are four reasons the UN and IMF, Global Elitist Members Re: Ban Kai Moon ( Who has openly expressed his stong desire for Global Governance ), PM Gordon Brown, Bilderberg Member Henry Kissinger, Senior Bilderberg Member David Rockefeller as well as an unprecedented number of Dictators that run various countries who are members of the United Nations this Copenhagen Treaty that was designed to acquire four goals, the least of them being climate improvment or protection as Lord Moncton has stated!
(1.) To de-industrialize Sovereign Countries ( No Jobs keep you dependant on State ) ( 2.) Take your money and assets – Hence, Fraudulent Carbon Emmissions and Carbon Gases for Carbon Credits and Carbon Taxes! (3.) Take away your property (4.) Take away your Sovereignty and Freedom!
Check out what Government is doing behind your back at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
@Rick Day
Did you know the extent of Antarctic ice had increased by 50% since 1980?
You could look it up but the info was deleted by nsidc.org !
Nice to hear your voice again Dr Bellamy. I never realized you had been blacklisted. Over here in Australia we have started to fight back against this fearmongering. The only way we can find the truth is to demand total access to ALL the data and computer source for anyone to download and audit. If they don’t provide it, the issue is settled.
Donna V.:
“Matthew, that might be true, but humoring an otherwise rational person with an eccentric belief is not the same as spending huge sums to completely reorder the global economy based on data that is looking increasingly shaky”
Fair enough. But the huge sums aren’t quite as bad as they’re made out to be:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427373.400-lowcarbon-future-we-can-afford-to-go-green.html
In reality, the “chicken littles” aren’t all on the pro-AGW side of the fence. Keep it in perspective, is all I’m saying.
“They are at the very heart of this and so if they’re massaging the data, “hiding the decline,” blacklisting other scientists who disagree with them and refusing to cooperate with FOIA requests”
Bogus. Sorry, but I’m very underwhelmed by the worst-case claims being bandied about like they’re killer arguments. Some of those emails are incredibly compromising for the authors, absolutely – but mostly because they’re a bunch of prats. The “hiding the decline” claim has been pretty well debunked (i.e. there was no decline to hide). The blacklisting claim sounds very impressive until you realise it was a small group of people kidding themselves about just how important they were – if they want to ignore a journal on the basis of its editorial position, then good luck to them. Journalists and pundits do that every day. So do readers. And the FOI request nonsense is just that – nonsense. The data was always available from other sources in accordance with THEIR access rules – all the CRU guys were doing was complying with their NDAs (i.e. binding contracts). It’s a crappy basis for research, I agree – but they didn’t create the problem, they had to live with it like everyone else. That was no secret before the leak, and it SHOULDN’T be a secret now.
“it is foolhardy to just take their word that we have to spend trillions”
Rubbish. Nobody is “just taking their word”. The field of AGW research and policy is vast. A couple of guys from east anglia with egg on their faces isn’t particularly significant. Nobody is relying just on their data, despite the noises from the echo-chamber. Do you really think the new zealand and australian governments are letting it all ride on one set of off-limits data from the UK?
“i.e. there was no decline to hide”
You’re retarded. Every set of data shows that there has been cooling for the past decade.
Keep denying. It just exposes you for the religious nutjob you are.
For those who care about AGW reporting on Wikipedia, William Connolley has lost his admin position. he always skated close to the line and apparently did it one time too many.
He’s still a force but he depends more on his raft of teammates to back him up.
AtheistConservative:
“You’re retarded. Every set of data shows that there has been cooling for the past decade”
Uh, huh. Yep. “the past decade” …
“Keep denying. It just exposes you for the religious nutjob you are”
The email you quote is from november 1999. I.e before “the past decade”, and completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not there has been a “cooling” over the past decade. That exposes you as a man who doesn’t check his references. Have you actually read the emails? Or are you just repeating whatever you’re told by your favorite blogs? I suspect it’s the latter.
You might or might not be a religious nutjob, but you’re definitely very silly.
49. Calvin Ball:
This brings up another aspect of the climate juggernaut – the fact that it’s sucked the oxygen out of all of the other environmental causes (with the singular exception of opposing nuclear power, which at least in the US seems to be as strong as ever).
Thank you, excellent point. I’ve said the same many times. As part of the attempts to marginalize/demonize them, skeptics are usually portrayed as aiding and abbetting environmental devastation, when actually many skeptics are people who would like to see a return to policy sanity on such issues and to focus on things like water conservation, reforestation, and restoration of ocean health. Putting our environmental energies into those efforts will strengthen the Earth’s ‘immune system’ which includes better CO2 absorption. Labeling CO2 as a ‘pollutant,’ and reviving the Enron scam of ‘carbon credits’ (that’s right, Enron!) on a vaster scale than Ken Lay ever envisioned is criminal insanity. We could recover from an Enron collapse, but not from the huge one that would be bound to happen if Copenhagen proved a ‘success’ for the lunatic ‘elites.’
Prof. Bellamy, as one of your multitudinous long standing fans, I’ve tried to keep up to date with your writings from down under. Knowing your capacity for wordiness and your ability to convey knowledge, I find this note fails to do you justice. However, it is nice to see you remain in the public eye. Perhaps you could write something a bit more substantial especially in view of recent revelations (not least climategate) and the ostrich-like behaviour of the AGW nazi types at the Copenhagen farce? It would I’m sure be welcomed by a great many of us.
Real Live TV
is the solution to watch live channels on your PC.
Compared to other products, Real Live TV gives
you the best service possible and also 24/7 Assistance