Talk:David Bellamy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Asperger syndrome?[edit]

Did Bellamy claim in any of his autobiographies to have (undiagnosed) Asperger syndrome, and if so which autobiography? There are two autobiographies.

I have read two different press articles which make these claims about Bellamy, one from BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3766697.stm and one from the Independent? http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/showthread.php?tid=5917

Desecration is not NPOV[edit]

"against the desecration of wilderness areas by wind farms"? Very, very NPOV. Desecration is a loaded word. Better would be "against the placing of wind farms in wilderness areas", I think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.189.36.25 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC+ 10 hours)

Controversy[edit]

It seems misplaced to me to write more about the climate change controversy than the man's career (HOW it is now). Surely this should be moved to another article. Then it can be updated and much more details about his individual views on this. After all though I and many other scientists think he is wrong its not the main focus of his career nor expertise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.246.210.111 (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discredited?[edit]

The Australian Sydney Morning Herald referred today to David Bellamy as the "now discredited British botanist David Bellamy".[1] This article states: "His unorthodox opinions have changed the way in which some organisations view Bellamy." It doesn't seem to quite capture what has happened to Bellamy's reputation. Why does the SMH say discredited, and who has discredited Bellamy? The section on his unorthodox views seems to show Bellamy shooting himself in the foot but not some effort being made by the scientific establishment to say he is talking nonsense.--A Y Arktos\talk 11:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem you have here is that Bellamy is a scientist, not a politician. "Consensus" is a political concept, it has no place in science. The fact that one person believes X and 20 believe Y doesn't mean that X is necessarily wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.139.187 (talk • contribs)

The 2 comments here sum up why I stand by my inclusion of links to published science supporting Bellamy's doubts about global warming. Wiki guidelines on NPOV imply that citing a published source using words like "discredited" should be balanced by other sources. In this context the SMH statement is attacking the man because the writer is not qualified to attack the claims of the science. The science has advocates for both competing views. But it is an undeniable historical fact that a British court of law looked at Al Gore's film and found most if not all the science was suspect or faulty. It appears that Bellamy is merely siding with the British court's verdict. Robert of Ramsor (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC) If Bellamy was right wing economist his views on Climate Change woudln't be news. As it is most of the people in Britain fighting hardest against Greenhouse gases grew up watching Bellamy on TV. Thesnufkin (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'But it is an undeniable historical fact that a British court of law looked at Al Gore's film and found most if not all the science was suspect or faulty' Nonsense. This is a bare faced lie. The judge in this case stated that "'I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'" He ruled that the film was fit to be distributed to British schools and that there were 9 disputable claims made in a two hour documentary, many of which were due to the film being based on data which had by then become outdated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.108.168 (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Bellamy.jpg[edit]

Image:Bellamy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two autobiographies?[edit]

I don't have a copy of each to hand but it's my understanding that A Natural Life is the paperback edition of Jolly Green Giant. As to why title and publisher changed - no idea - but I own the hardback, and flicking through the paperback when it appeared in shops, it did appear to be the same book. Maybe the text was revised. I won't change the page without being certain, but thought the issue deserved flagging up here. Dantheman123 (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bellamy's changing views on global warming[edit]

I'm a Wikipedia newbie and I'd like to add the following to this article as I feel it would make it more complete:

In his foreword to the 1989 book The Greenouse Effect[1] Dr 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." However, his subsequent statements indicate that he changed his views completely.

I was planning to add this at the top of the section "Views on global warming".

Any advice before I publish?

Interesting, isnt it. Just because Bellamy doesn't voice the "correct opinion" he is marginalised. And these people consider themselves scientists. How pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.29.106 (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its necessarily the case that he doesn't voice the "correct opinion", its more that he keeps switching his view with no apparent logic except that he latches onto someone else's (unproven) figures. Bellamy was always regarded as a "scientist" but he was never really any more than an keen amateur. Knows all and knows bugger all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.149.5 (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats fair enough. Just do it and see what happens. If people object we can discuss it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bellamy could go further[edit]

I have restored my contribution with supporting evidence from published scientists in the interest of balance on this aspect of the debate.

My contributions, in the one case show that one of Australia's highest ranking climate scientists has studied NASA and other evidence of global cooling, and no CO2 related greenhouse effect, compared with which Belaamy is still relatively speaking an advocate of claims for man-made global warming. In the other case, Monbiot has been twice quoted in the article as a critic of Bellamy. But Monbiot is an economist and not a scientist. Monbiot's criticism of Bellamy needs to be scrutinised for the scientific claims, as well as claims of the historical record of who said what and when. By exposing one aspect of Monbiot's article as selective science which ignores other factual evidence, I hope that readers will be able to come to a conclusion in the light of a greater range of facts.

While this is not strictly biographical in the sense of a record of what Bellamy did, it contributes to the picture of this aspect of Bellamy's life and public statements. And ther is no where else to put this material, which is a facet of this article.

I note from Francis Irving's blog, [2], that he seems to favour those organisations which are advocates of the man-made global warming theories. So are Monbiot and The Guardian. In the interests of Wiki NPOV, I ask that an alternative, backed by published science, perspective be retained, so as to provide competing viewpoints in discussing Bellamy's views. Otherwise, the article may give (falsely, unintentionally) the impression of a slanging match between Monbiot and Bellamy.

Bellamy seems to show some inconstistency, apparently changing his mind. This makes this issue more complicated. Perhaps with a fuller picture we can clarify things. And the cited sources for the claim that Bellamy has been shunned by the BBC for his views against the greenhouse effect are far from the only published sources for this claim. (It was IRN Radio News an American news service used by many radio stations that alerted me to this with a link to other British sources.) Robert of Ramsor (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this was about but I've just removed material sourced to Monbiot's blog because it's a WP:BLP vio. Edgespath24 (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In the other case, Monbiot has been twice quoted in the article as a critic of Bellamy. But Monbiot is an economist and not a scientist."[edit]

Economics is actually a science. And botany is no more relevant to climatology than economics is. Both have studied the subject outside of their trained fields, so both should be given an equal hearing. If anything economics may be more relevant to climatology than botany, thanks to it's grounding in maths, observation of long term trends, and prediction models - which botanists have comparatively little training in. Miasmic (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look on the Monbiot article Monbiot has a science degree and more than that is actually a Fellow of Oxford University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilj (talk • contribs) 14:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Boyle, Stewart (1989). The Greenouse Effect. Hodder and Stoughton. ISBN ISBN 0-450-50638-X. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Honours and Awards[edit]

Erm, Order of the British Empire (OBE) ? 84.92.56.32 (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wind farms[edit]

The passage on Bellamy's views on wind farms, with its use of the word 'despite', implies an inconsistency or even dishonesty in Bellamy's views. There would actually be no inconsistency between believing that wind power can sometimes be useful and at the same time resisting the widespread construction of wind farms in areas of outstanding natural beauty. But it is possible that Bellamy has simply changed his mind as the disadvantages of wind power have become more apparent. Could someone give a date for the CEGB video in which Bellamy is said to have supported wind power? The cited reference is from 1990, and the video is presumably older than that. I presume that it is reasonable for someone to change their views over a period of several decades.86.183.77.86 (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disc jockey[edit]

The lede says he is a DJ. I'm guessing this is a reference to his recording of "Brontosaurus Will You Wait For Me". I don't think one novelty song qualifies someone as a DJ so I removed this from the lede. However, if I'm missing something, feel free to revert. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph of Views on global warming section[edit]

Bellamy seems to make various claims at various times about what ended his television career. This last bit needs editing and more sourcing. Possible sources:

--Yopienso (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Bellamy "discredit" himself[edit]

By taking money (from BP or ICI) in the early 80s?Keith-264 (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed the article and didn't see any references to Bellamy accepting monies from any oil company. Do you have any reliable sources? Regardless, whether his actions bring him "discredit" or "credit" is up to the reader to decide. We certainly wouldn't make any such statement in a WP:BOLP.--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was going on memory which is why I asked.Keith-264 (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember in the mid 1990's a rumour that David Bellamy had "sold out" The issue was apparently a childrens book he had written about animals threatened by a new road development. The animals are all moved to a new recreated habitat by the road builders, and so the book presents the developers as caring and benign. I can see that David Bellamy wrote a few books for children but I can't see synopses for them. Can anyone confirm or deny this rumour? 118.255.142.236 (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loads of things written have no references[edit]

The article claims he has various degrees, president of various societies, has awards, but very few are referenced. Drkirkby (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link to his Times letter "draw back from the debate" (presently 10) is dead. The other link to New Science is behind a pay wall including the referenced quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.37.9 (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another David Bellamy[edit]

An artist - www.davidbellamy.co.uk

Very well known watercolourist based in the UK but known worldwide, with at least one book and several tuition DVDs. For years, I thought David Bellamy the botanist had turned his hand to painting until I saw a picture of the artist recently and realised he is a different man. Perhaps someone needs to add a "disambiguation"? I don't know how to do that, and it was all I could do to work out how to post this information to the site. If I've missed an existing page about the artist, apologies for wasting your time, but I couldn't find one. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.123.138 (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP noticeboard[edit]

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail material[edit]

All right, Peter Gulutzan, enlighten me. What makes the material sourced solely to the Daily Mail so essential on this biography of a living person, on a project that has WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:DAILYMAIL11? --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above post is from MarchOrDie, who removed a cite to a remark that Bellamy made in the Daily Mail. I said the removal wasn't necessary. I self-reverted; I see that I didn't do so quickly enough to make the above post unnecessary. My edit summary said: "Self-revert. We don't need to revert daily mail references of this type (yes I know about wp:dailymail1 quite well), but I don't want to make a [big] deal out of this particular item.)" Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that, and sorry I forgot to sign my first post. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TV Chronology[edit]

having an exhaustive list of 40 years' worth of media appearances located right in the middle of an article is... unhelpful to say the least. 81.147.60.7 (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree. Have moved section down. The table could also be collapsed if still too intrusive. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More than intrusive, they are completely unencyclopaedic (whether collapsed or not) and serve no useful purpose. If any of those appearances are of particular significance, they should be in the prose of the article. Davidships (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
pinging originator of list @Dm4244: Davidships (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"...not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article..."Dm4244 (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Bellamy&oldid=1204818724"