THIS weekend, to celebrate the International Year of Biodiversity 2010, a “Big Nature Bioblitz” event will take place in Stanmer Park near Brighton.
It has the worthy aim of engaging young would-be conservationists – but why on earth, wonders Dr Robert Stovold, of the Brighton & Hove Humanist Society – has religion been injected into the event in the form of Christian and climate change denier Professor Sir David Bellamy dressed as Noah?
Sir David Bellamy
In drawing our attention to this strange bit of barminess involving the “Bearded Bungler”, Stovold writes:
And just what might the story of Noah’s Flood have to teach our children about biodiversity? That Genesis has any degree of verisimilitude? Wrong.
That there was a global flood 4,000 or so years ago? Wrong.
That today’s biodiversity could plausibly have arisen from a handful of surviving species in the past 4,000 or so years since the Flood? Wrong again. (Ironically for Creationists, that would actually require higher rates of evolution than evolutionary biologists dare to fantasize about.)
That a loving god’s best solution to a problem involves killing practically every living thing on the planet? Most moral philosophers find such an idea problematic.
That only animals need to be conserved, and plants don’t? Wrong again. One hopes that Professor Bellamy (who is, after all a botanist…) knows better.
That biodiversity is worth conserving? Well, yes – except of course that the Bible neither uses the term “biodiversity” nor tell us why it should be conserved. Science (not religion) gave us answers to these questions – and science is revealing our planet’s biodiversity to be hull-bustingly large.
That the planet’s biodiversity might reasonably be conserved using one family and a large boat? Wrong again. Actually we’re going to need an earthly solution that involves worldwide co-operation. But hey, who wants to teach children about worldwide co-operation?  Let’s do the supernatural “One Man and his God” story instead!  Just about the only analogy worth salvaging from the Flood story is that humans and animals are in the same boat.
Attempts to link religion to conservation are flawed and downright irresponsible. If Jesus and today’s Christian fundamentalists are right, we’re in the “last times”. The world’s about to end, so why bother conserving anything?
What would Jesus do? Well, “Take no thought for the morrow” would seem to be the basic message of Matthew 6:25-34. And according to Jesus, God looks after the birds (and the lilies).
Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them.
Far from being the solution, the Bible sanctions the greedy overexploitation of the earth’s resources, which is of course the very cause of the problem.
Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth. (Genesis 1:28).
As Sir David Attenborough rightly pointed out in his documentary Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life:
Sir David Attenborough
Darwin’s great insight revolutionised the way in which we see the world … But above all Darwin has shown us that we are not apart from the natural world – we do not have dominion over it. We are subject to its laws and processes, as are all the other animals on earth to which indeed we are related.
Now there’s a message worth teaching our children – and it’s backed up with mountains of scientific evidence to boot. So why doesn’t Bellamy appear in Stanmer as Darwin?
He’s got the beard, and everything.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
June 2nd, 2010 at 10:12 am
and questioning scientific theories is wrong because? “climate change denier” (why does that sound like “holocaust denier”?) climate change denier is such a orwellian phrase. since when are scientific theories not to be held up to critisism? why is it followers of the al gore religeon allways act like their sacred theory is above critisism? like anyone who disbelives is somehow an idiot? perhaps bellamy is a fool. but he’s got it right when he says C02 has bugger all to do with climate change. whatch films like the global warming scandal. look at both sides of the story. so much for the scientific method.
June 2nd, 2010 at 10:50 am
I’m with Godlesssodamite! Bellamy, a gifted educator and knowledgeable biologist, has been sidelined for years now because of his refusal to bow to the new religion of Global…sorry, Climate Change. None of the “evidence” has convinced me either. Plus ca change and all that!!
June 2nd, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Climate change is irrelevant. One way or another this planet is going to be habitable for a finite time and we need to prepare for that. Sure, we can spend billions extending the duration, or we can spend money developing alternatives.
In a few thousand years maybe sheltering in a planet’s atmosphere will be viewed the same as sheltering in a cave.
June 2nd, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Why oh why do some so called freethinkers suddenly lose their beloved rationality up when it comes to climate change. Here are the facts:
1) Climate change *REALLY IS HAPPENING* and this is quantifiable.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the concentrations of which have risen massively in the last hundred years. Its effects can be determined on a small scale very easily.
3) The long term effect of climate change is unknown and the feedback mechanisms are largely unknown. The best we have are hypotheses that fit the known data. These are overwhelmingly of the opinion that climate change will be bad for humans, it is predominantly caused by CO2 and that we should do something about it now.
Yes, we do have to trust the climate scientists. Martin Rees put it beautifully in the Reith Lecture yesterday morning. I suggest you listen to it for youself, but it was something like, “there is very good reason to think that CO2 might be causing climate change, so lets trust the scientists who actually research this stuff and listen to what they have to say”.
I for one am willing to take out insurance to prevent what might be a pretty catastrophic unknown. Denial is a downright foolish response.
June 2nd, 2010 at 12:58 pm
@heng An excellent summary. I’m with you.
June 2nd, 2010 at 1:12 pm
I’ve always respected David Bellamy, in particular his courage standing up against the hysteria surrounding man-made climate change. It is a pity that he has given his critcs more ammunition by this silly stunt. I didn’t know he was a christian; how does he square that with his knowledge of Biology?
June 2nd, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Heng: you don’t have to write CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING in capital letters to convince me of that fact. It has been happening ever since the earth was formed! What I am NOT convinced of is that there is any evidence whatsoever that humnan activity has had any measurable effect on this phenomenon, or even that it is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere that is affecting changes to the earth’s climate at the present time. Having said that, I have always been a very keen conservationist, and totally opposed to the way that mankind has abused this planet and used its resources in such a selfish and short sighted way. What really worries me is the danger that if it is found that these current theories are incorrect the baby may well be thrown out with the bathwater!
June 2nd, 2010 at 2:39 pm
@Heng: we are thinking rationally. it’s just we choose to look at both sides of the argumeant and not just blindly follow the media and al gore’s lackeys.
1. yes climate change is happening, but it has nothing to do with a gas we breath out of our lungs that rises when heat goes up rather then the other way round. plus it’s mostly the oceans and animals breathing that contributes mostly to it. the climate has changes over the millenia. in medievil times london had vinyards and in the 19th century the thames froze over so much that people could have markets on it. some climate experts belive we may be heading into another ice age.
c02 has never affected the climate like that before, so why now? and how do you explain mars’ ice caps melting, huh? lots of cars and factories there i imagine! the icc is largely a political organisation and many scientist have have found that this organisation adds there names to the list of pro-global warming (yes i know you gore fans changed the name, but the creationists changed theres too but that doesn’t stop them from being bullshitters) scientists and it’s often take threats of legal action to get it removed. how can you trust this jiggery pokery?
2. c02 has been going up and down for millenia. if we wanted to get rid of co2 we’d have to cut down the forests, stop plants from rotting, drain all the oceans and kill any animal with a set of lungs. the fact is that our atmosphere is affected by the behavior of the sun. the whole solar system is. we humans are just gnats on the back of a giant. are we really so arrogant to think we have so much effect on this planet? come on, if our species died out now, it would only take a blink of an eye (relativly speaking and thats all we’ve been around for) before there will be no trace of us left ( exept for our plastics and even then some life form would evolve to eat that. yes we harm the planet dumping shit in our seas, but once we’re gone the earth with shrug it’s shoulders and carry on regardless.)
2. data you say? hypothasese (sorry about the spelling, i’m dyslexic)? we are and the fact is that this theory hasn’t got much evidence. more and more brave scientists and polititions are standing up to this bollocks. more and more data is being disproved. recently the claims that the icecaps were melting were debunked when it was found the “experts” had got the info from and old magazine. the fact is that the polar ice caps are always melting and re-freezeing. the climate is always shifting and evolving.
3. can we trust the pro- anthropogenic global warming “scientists” ( they can’t be real scientists when they follow the official line for a quick buck and a cushy grant)? they’ve been caught again and again faking figures and bolstering evidence. the inconveniant lie (sorry “truth”) has been found to be full of lies. gore refuses to debate climate skeptics and gets tons on money from jetting around in fancy planes doing speeches where he only answers questions he’s given the reporters to ask. he has a shit-load of houses and flashy cars. he has been called the first carbon millionaire. these claims of “overwhelming evidence” and “the discussion is over!”, not to mention the way supporters of this nonsence always seem to insult people like me who want to look at the evidence for and against and make our own minds up, reeks of desperation.
since climategate, the myth of anthropogenic climate change is falling apart. look around. be objective. look at the facts and don’t swallow the propoganda. thats what freethinking is all about. skeptisism and rational thought.
June 2nd, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Shame, had a lot of respect for Bellamy. Not any longer. That’s in regard to him playing bloody Noah. I don’t really see that climate change has any relevance on these pages.
June 2nd, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Barriejohn: Apologies if I seemed forceful on that capitalised point, it was aimed at the wider audience.
Not being convinced doesn’t mean that there is no evidence or that not being convinced is a reasonable position. By saying that humans have no measurable influence, you are dismissing the opinions of virtually all the climate scientists in the world.
I’ve yet to see a critique of the science that goes beyond ad hominem attacks or problems with the models (of which everyone is acutely aware). I’ve never seen anyone try to explain why increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 30-40% will have no impact on the global climate (perhaps you can try?). Its pretty uncontroversial that the CO2 in the atmosphere is what keeps the the world habitable, so why does seriously changing the concentration have no impact? Why is it that everything will be fine – what makes you so confident? I would love it to be true that we can ignore the issue of CO2 emissions, but it just doesn’t make sense. Just like I would love for there to be a benevolent god, but it just doesn’t make sense.
Those aren’t just facetious questions; if you have some insight, I would love to be enlightened.
AngieRS: freethought is about debate and discussion. If I feel someone is not being rational, then absolutely should that be relevant.
June 2nd, 2010 at 4:21 pm
AngieRS: he was labelled a “Cimate Change Denier” because of his refusal to subscribe to the new orthodoxy, which does seem a dangerous position for freethinkers to take. I have never come across any reference to him being a Christian anywhere else, so he certainly hasn’t been making a big thing about that!
June 2nd, 2010 at 4:51 pm
I’m convinced that the whole climate change thing as it’s being presented and marketed to us is a load of pish, of course climate change is happening it always has been happening and always will happen and we’re going to have to adapt to it and all the scaremongering that the pro climate change people are responsible for isn’t going to convince me and the way they link climate change skeptics with right wing/religious nutjobs is out of order if they’re so sure of their science they wouldn’t have to do that.
even patrick moore who co founded greenpeace left because he said they were resorting too much to scare tactics and beinding the truth here and their to back up their claims oh and if Al Gore is so sure we have to change the way we live then why doesn’t he lead by example and move out of his massive mansion with 8 toilets and move into a little shack or something.
June 2nd, 2010 at 5:11 pm
godlesssodamite,
Where are you getting your information on climate change?
You make a lot of claims that are not backed up by any data.
It isn’t enough to assert something and then say go out and get the facts.
What is this accusation based on?
Do you actually have evidence to support this accusation of dishonesty?
All your talk of Gore is poisoning the well. He could be a total hypocrite flying around the world and even making money and this still would not affect the whether or not climate change is anthropogenic.
Name what scientists are debunking anthropogenic climate change. Forget politicians.
The statement about Mars is the controversial theory of one person. That is just cherry-picking.
You keep going on about thinking rationally but it is hard to keep up with all the logical fallacies you come out with.
June 2nd, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Like everyone else, I am an expert on this subject and can categorically state that man made global warming is part of the INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY OF LIBERALS whose sole aim is to undermine democracy, freedom and our beautiful capitalist system.
This means I can now drive my large car as often as I like, fly in private jets to meetings 30 miles away and leave all my lights and heaters on all winter so that I can comfortably lounge around any room in the house in shorts and t-shirt. All without any sense of guilt whatsoever.
Thank goodness we have the oil companies to tell us the truth about these evil scientists.
June 2nd, 2010 at 5:59 pm
godlesssodamite: Stop with the ad hominems! You’re reasoning like a cheese. Just stop it.
CO2 does affect the climate. Without CO2, the world would be oh so very very cold. The greenhouse gases are what keeps the world warm. The concentration of CO2 has risen by 30-40% in the last 100 years. None of this is open to debate.
Some of your statements are downright stupid (specifically your statements about breathing and rotting trees). There is such a thing as the carbon cycle. It describes the short term process by which carbon moves around the ecosystem. Over the years, small amounts of carbon gets locked up in undersea and underground strata in the form of oil, gas and coal. Over a huge number of years, huge amounts of carbon gets locked up. Digging this carbon up and burning it then contributes to an atmospheric increase in CO2, over and above the usual carbon cycle. This is why CO2 levels have increased by 30-40% in living memory.
Nobody doubts that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, but then the world was very different. The problem isn’t that the world will end, but that our society will have great difficulties in adjusting to the changes imposed. The biggest problem is, nobody has the slightest idea what those changes will be. Everyone is hoping they won’t be too bad, but nobody knows.
Of course, you could take the view that it all doesn’t matter in the long run and screw the human population. Whatever your opinion on this it doesn’t actually detract from the question of whether the rising CO2 is causing climate change.
There is actually very little evidence that the Mars ice cap is melting, and even if it was, it wouldn’t tell you much by itself.
Simply raising anecdotes and shouting “swindle” makes you look like a deluded fool.
June 2nd, 2010 at 6:30 pm
I’m 100% with Heng on this subject. And even, even, if it turned out we weren’t, ultimately, causing climate change with our pollution, for the time being I’d rather play safe than just say fuck it, cross our fingers and bury our collective heads in the sand. And isn’t ignoring scientific evidence exactly what we constantly accuse fundies if doing?
June 2nd, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Oh dear. I was afraid this would happen. My biodiversity post got hijacked by the whole climate change debate thing. But I think George Monbiot makes a good point in his debate with Bellamy:
http://www.channel4.com/news/a.....ting/10793
“If you are dismissing the great majority and I’m talking over 99.9 per cent of the world’s climate scientists you have to some pretty strong data to dismiss that. But what you have dismissed that data with is data which has no source and is false”.
June 2nd, 2010 at 7:11 pm
You cant blame people for being skeptical about man made global warming when the governments response to it is to put the price of everything up under the guise of so called ‘green taxes’.
As a freethinker, I remain open minded about it but I’d rather not be hit in the wallet until it can be proved that the cause of global warming is man made CO2, and that the best way to reverse the effect of it is to ensure that less wealthy people don’t have the chance to contribute to its production. If indeed the effects can be reversed.
You cant help but think that its just a very convenient reason for greedy governments to put taxes up.
June 2nd, 2010 at 7:25 pm
David Bellamy, now there’s a blast from the past. The enthusiasm and hands-dirty approach in his documentaries was something I greatly admired as I became interested in science as a schoolboy. I have his 1978 book, Botanic Man, in front of me now. Unfortunately, by the time I got my hands on it I saw it as the popular science book for the masses it was. I had to buy it anyway.
I didn’t know he was an Xian, that must be why he doesn’t get his work published in peer reviewed journals. If it ain’t peer reviewed, it’s not been properly scrutinised and is worthless.
He’s wrong about climate change. I’m sure he knows the rotting sphagnum in his beloved peat bogs gives off loads of methane. Also there are billions of tonnes of the stuff frozen into to arctic tundra in Siberia. As this permafrost melts, we can expect a huge burp of methane billions the size of a cow fart. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is twenty times more effective than CO2.
Sorry Robert, you can’t have Bellamy without sphagnum!
June 2nd, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Wurble: if you’re not hit in the wallet by it now, you may not get another chance. This is not hyperbole, simply pragmatism.
For the “skeptics”, I entreat you to look at http://www.skepticalscience.com . All the various issues that get raised are addressed, with citations.
Robert: Sorry!
June 2nd, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Whether it’s man made or not climate change can hardly be denied when the glaciers are melting. The permafrost is melting, The snows of Kilimanjaro and many other mountains are disappearing. I’ve suspected for some time that the deniers are people like the Republicans who get hysterical at the mention of paying more taxes.
June 3rd, 2010 at 9:33 am
The problem with the whole ‘global warming’ now rebranded as ‘climate change’ debacle is that these scientific studies are all paid for by people with an agenda. It’s a sad fact with most scientific studies nowadays that they have to be funded, and the funding comes with strings attached.
Certain parties stand to make a LOT of money from this climate change c02 tax, and I seriously doubt that taxing people on c02 emissions is going to make a damn bit of difference to the amount of c02 in the atmosphere.
I don’t think the problem is so much our c02 emissions as the deforestation of our planet, we are removing our planets natural carbon sinks at an alarming rate. My conclusion is that yes there is climate change, as that’s a natural phenomena regardless of mans actions, and that yes it’s probably a good idea to be a little more efficient with energy regardless of climate change.
However when the people making the most noise about carbon footprints and climate change, are the ones who stand to make a huge amount of money from it then I am inclined to view the argument with extreme scepticism.
You want to help the environment? Plant a tree, don’t waste money on ‘energy efficient’ highly toxic fluorescent lightbulbs!
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:09 am
I personally think global warming is unavoidable. The developed countries won’t change their ways fast enough but for me the real worry is the developing world. How many billions of humanity do these people represent? As they become more affluent they’ll want everything we’ve been enjoying for years and who are we to lecture them? Maybe it’s best to adapt our homes, industries and agriculture rather than do a King Canute. Better get the military tooled up as well. From what I’ve read it seems conflict over water rights is inevitable. Mass migration will be huge problem too. It’s already a big political issue. I read an article in NewScientist some months ago that envisaged habitable zones for humans only at higher latitudes and a global population of 1-2 billion. As I said, better get the military tooled up.
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:51 am
Broadsword
I’m confident that as the oil runs out and we start burning coal again instead, and as the methane in what was previously permafrost begins to enter the atmosphere, humanity will take the issue seriously, will sit down round a table and discuss the plight of the planet in a civilised, generous and mature way.
Our remaining resources will then be shared out fairly and equally among all nations. Those nations that gain from global warming will lend a helping hand to those who lose out. Large scale consumers of non renewable resources, like the USA, Europe and China will make the necessary changes to their lifestyles in order to benefit all mankind.
One only has to look to history to see that this has always been the case. So, on the whole, a rosy and optimistic future to look forward to.
June 3rd, 2010 at 11:13 am
If only people who claim to be sceptical about man-made climate change, citing how those making most noise about it stand to gain, would also acknowledge that most of the funding of the deniers is coming from companies, like the oil companies, with a vested interest in the status quo. Why only seem to be sceptical when it requires making changes.
As far as the highly toxic fluorescent bulb thing, there is no danger unless they’re broken and even then they just need some care in cleaning them up.
All fluorescent bulbs have contained mercury. Like those long tubes you’ve seen everywhere for decades now.
Much more mercury is pumped into the atmosphere from coal-burning electricity generators. Using the bulbs requiring less energy means less coal is burned, so on balance less mercury in the environment.
Just like batteries they need to be properly recycled and not dumped in land-fill.
If you’re really that paranoid or clumsy then just buy the LED bulbs instead. Ikea have had them for ages and all decent lighting stores carry them.
There has always been climate change. The regular ice-ages are testament to that. That isn’t an argument against man-made changes. It shows that there are feedback cycles that respond to even small increases in solar activity, etc. What to speak of tons of fossil fuels being burned along with massive deforestation.
Anyway, I’d just like to second heng’s recommendation of that site, skepticalscience.
June 3rd, 2010 at 11:36 am
Peter
I hope you’re right. The problem is that if climate change forces us to live at higher latitudes there will be insufficient landmass and agricultural output (plants won’t grow as well) to support the current world population. If that happens it’s a sad fact that you won’t be able to save everybody. Many of the nations you mention will cease to exist. They’ll be arid dustbowls fighting their neighbours, their societies in chaos as everybody tries to force their way north or south. There are just too many people already. Some forecasts had the future sustainable global population as low as 1.2 billion. No country is able to radically reduce it’s population without demographic problems. If you cut the birth rate, you end up with an ageing society the workers can’t maintain. One model suggests climate change could make southern Europe only borderline habitable and it may happen as quickly as in 100 years. That’s much too fast for 6 billion people to react. Eventually those able to adapt must close their doors and anyone locked out just isn’t going to accept that.
I hope I’m wrong but I just can’t see it happening any other way. I would trust most Western countries to act honourably but they will have to pull up the drawbridge eventually. The opening salvoes in this scenario will be over water in the Middle East and in countries in South Asia relying on rivers fed by meltwaters from disappearing Himalayan glaciers. Nuclear armed India and Pakistan spring to mind.
That’s why I said we need to get the military tooled up. As an old uncle of mine told me, “Walk quietly, but carry a big stick”.
June 3rd, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Broadsword
Sorry if it didn’t come across, but I wasn’t actually being serious. I don’t think there’s a cat’s chance in hell of humanity changing it’s ways before it’s too late. Personally, I think it’s already too late. Peak Oil + 6 billion people = a calamity that’ll make the world wars look like a day out at Disneyland.
There was a fantastic cover on New Scientist a few months back – planet Earth, being squeezed dry of every last drop of oil.
June 3rd, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Peter
I think I saw that issue. Depressing isn’t it? Time to put your feet up and watch the Mad Max trilogy.