You don't actually read his stuff, do you?
He's not actually a climate change denier. He reserves most of his finest abuse for 4x4s. And, most entertaining, he royally fucks off people who take the world way, way too seriously.

Yes, most sensible people disagree with a lot of his politics. But, you've missed the crucial point that he writes a newspaper column because a lot of people want to read it. Just because you don't doesn't make it "inexplicable". The explanation is blindingly obvious - plenty of others do.

Incidentally, he was 100% correct about online banking. No-one "hacked" his account. Someone set up a direct debit from his account to a charity (which would be the only thing you could do with the information concerned) but, since a direct debit is limited to a registered trader and rather transparent, as well as being guaranteed by the bank, all he has to do would be to ask for it back.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 4 May 2010, 13:38, 2 replies)

Ok, I said "hacked" for brevity's sake - I know it was a DD to a charity account, probably a bad choice of word

(LongJohnBaldry, Tue 4 May 2010, 13:49, closed)

He was making a point about the pathetic level of paranoia about online fraud
and he has a very good point, too. It did actually cost him the money, because the person concerned chose the charity fairly carefully to make it bad PR on his part had he asked for it back, but he could have done. You or I could happily post our bank details here safe in the knowledge that fuck all permanent or damaging could be done with them.

Incidentally, I don't disagree that the bloke is a cock, but he is entertaining, partly because he so polarises opinion.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 4 May 2010, 13:55, closed)

Correct?
Clarkson's own words on the subject:

"The bank cannot find out who did this because of the Data Protection Act and they cannot stop it from happening again... I was wrong and I have been punished for my mistake."

"Contrary to what I said at the time, we must go after the idiots who lost the discs and stick cocktail sticks in their eyes until they beg for mercy."


He didn't seem to think he was all that correct. Why do you?

Similarly, on global warming,

"Of course, if you believe in global warming (looked out of the window recently?)"

Spot the implication, here? The man's too fuckwitted to acknowledge that a complex global trend might not be directly manifested in his own back garden. Because, as Jeremy knows, the universe is centred around Jeremy's massive, pompous, ignorant head.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 4 May 2010, 14:39, closed)

Or alternatively
"people idiotically believe anything he writes, which I'm sure he finds massively amusing"

Someone put a direct debit on his account. Do you want to look up how a direct debit works? They can't find out who actually DID it, but that's irrelevant, as they know where the money went. The can't stop someone else setting up another debit either, but you can't lose any money over it, as each time, you just ask the bank for it back and like magic, you get it. Direct Debit guarantee.

The man isn't too fuckwitted for anything. You appear to be assuming that a throwaway comment which is quite obviously a joke is what he actually believes, because you don't like him. Yet, presumably, you know him well enough to know how he feels about how the universe is centered? what a curious dichotomy
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 4 May 2010, 15:10, closed)

That quote - one of his?
I thought not - but then, it won't be the first time yoyu've put words into his mouth. You seem to think you speak better on his behalf than he does.

I don't need to look up how a direct debit works - for one thing, I know quite well how a direct debit works, thankyou - and for another, *that was not the point he was making*. He didn't assume that everything would be ok besides adirect debit for 500 quid coming out - he assumed no money would leave his account at all, for any reason, for any length of time. In his own words, from the piece in which he published his details:

"All you'll be able to do with them is put money into my account. Not take it out."

He is *on record* as subsequently stating that he was mistaken, wrong, incorrect, and so forth - yet you're rewriting the dialogue, on the fly, to conform to some bizarre image of the man that exists solely in your mind. But, of course, you can get around this by stating anything he says is "quite obviously a joke" if it doesn't fit in with your own personal narrative.

Also, on your presumption that I dislike him (true), and that I feel I know him well (false) - that's not a dichotomy, curious or otherwise. If you're going to break out the dictionary in order to impress, you'd be well advised to check that the words mean what you think they mean.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 4 May 2010, 16:35, closed)

dichotomy
generally defined as division of two contradictory parts or opinions, no?

Tell me how you disliking him without knowing him isn't a contradiction of opinion...

I'm not re-writing his words. Or at least that wasn't my intention. I was stating that regardless of the outcome the point he had was valid. That people get excessively paranoid about online fraud of this type, which they do. Because it doesn't exist. My opinion, not his. I made the DD point as you seemed to have missed that bit.

I don't have the slightest interest in putting words into his mouth, I've no idea where you get that opinion. The bloke's a prize cock, but he's perfectly capable of being a cock by himself. I pointed that out before, but you've missed that too, somehow. I just said that it's amusing how much he pisses off sanctimonious idiots who can't help but take him seriously when it's obviously to anyone with two brain cells to rub together he's taking the piss.

Bloody hell, internet. Seriz Bizness.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 5 May 2010, 9:13, closed)

There isn't anything contradictory about knowing someone, and disliking them
this isn't the Carebear Universe, in which we'd all just get along if only we understood one another better. I don't need to have a meet'n'greet with the movers and shakers in the Third Reich in order to conclude that they were probably not very nice people. I don't need to stare Richard Littlejohn in the eye, to see if there's more to him than his venemous little columns. And I'm not obliged (or even extend the benefit of the doubt) to like an overly-opinionated, under-educated vacuous and self-important bore such as Clarkson.

A dichotomy is bascially the division of a whole into two non-overlapping parts. These overlap. I dislike him precisely because I know his character, or constituent parts thereof.


Seriz indede...
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Wed 5 May 2010, 10:34, closed)

My point is that the dichotomy exists precisely because your dislike of him
is based on an entirely false impression of his character, and one that he almost certainly set out to create amongst those who take things seriously that they really shouldn't. In effect, you don't know him at all.

The difference between Clarkson and, say, Littlejohn, is that it's very obvious that Clarkson isn't serious about almost anything he says. overly opinionated? oh yes. So? under-educated? Please. That's a crap card to play at the best of times. Unless you seriously think that qualifications always make your opinions more valid? If so, please don't come into academia, you're in for a horrible shock. Vacuous? no more so than any other journalist. Self-important? Not really, no, because he doesn't expect anyone to take him seriously.

To put it another way. He's a cock in many other ways, and you have every right in the world to dislike him, but the fact that people take things he says seriously when they clearly aren't meant to be taken as such is hardly his fault. If anything, there the stupidity exists in the reader and not the author. You can't complain that his opinion is worthless because he knows nothing about a subject when his opinion was never intended to be used as a serious stance on the subject in the first place.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 5 May 2010, 12:01, closed)

Even presuming I had a false impression of his character
which I do not, incidentally, believe to be the case - it would still not be a dichotomy.

I don't give a rat's ass if he's actually, personally annoying or going out of his way to create an annoying persona; either would be enough to earn my dislike. Antics such as driving a landrover through the delicate ecology of a Scottish peat bog, or ramming a 4x4 into a 300-year old horse chestnut tree, do little to endear him to me. How on earth you pretend to detect a difference between two right-wing columnists, defending one whilst tossing the other under the bus, is quite beyond me.

Yes, qualifications make your opinions more valid, when you're discussing scientific matters. This is self-evidently true. Very few - in fact, dare I say no - prominent scientists got where they are as part of a saturday job, or weekend hobby; it's an academic discipline which requires serious amounts of study. The 'your qualificaitons mean nothing in the real world' card is generally only played by intellectually-impoverished chumps who have a handful of GCSEs (or equivalent), and no more; into this category, I would tentatively insert Jeremy Clarkson. As for me not coming into academia - given that I hold an MSc (nb: in a largely-unrelated subject, I'm not claiming to be a climate-change guru), bit late for that.

Unless you have a deep, personal knowledge of the man, you're working with the same evidence as me; ie, how he chooses to portray himself in the national media. You have no grounds for dismissing it all as a 'joke'; delivered in comedic fashion or not, he consistently, strenuously makes the same set of tired old points, and I'm fairly sure it's not just a coincidence.

He knows nothing about science, or the climate, yet rambles on about it anyway. This annoys me. I have a certain amount of familiarity with scientific process and method, and would not dream of pontificating in such a manner without having first examined all the available evidence, simply because I believe the results of my study to be more relevent than my gut feeling.

In brief; he's an ill-mannered thicko with a loudhailer, and he gets on my nerves.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Wed 5 May 2010, 16:15, closed)

trust me on this, since it's what I do.
your qualifications don't make your opinion more valid unless you are entering a debate with the intention to be taken seriously. I never said anything about your qualifications meaning nothing. I said they don't necessarily make your opinion more valid. It utterly depends on the context. Clarkson is not entering a scientific debate nor is he claiming to be a science correspondent. He works in entertainment. Tell me, do you get this irrationally angry because you think that Frankie Boyle shouldn't comment because he has no knowledge of the existence or not of bats in the queen's cunt? It's the same thing.

I can detect a difference because, frankly, I'm not a fucking idiot. Littlejohn is a political columnist, therefore it is reasonable to take what he says as his serious comment on things, and his comments are hateful. Clarkson does entertainment. It's rather different. Also, to my knowledge, Clarkson is not racist, homophobic, or overly nationalistic.

Unless your argument is "people are not allowed to hold opinions on something they are unqualified to comment on" then I fail to see any merit in it. Since Clarkson is neither a climate change scientist nor does he ask to be taken seriously or does he write a science column, the problem is yours if you take him in any way seriously, not his. If I write on climate change, then I have a responsibility to put forward the most powerful and respected scientific arguments backed up with as much data as possible, because it is one of my fields of research and therefore I ask to be taken seriously. Clarkson does not.

That doesn't diminish your right to dislike him or for him to get on your nerves, of course.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 5 May 2010, 16:35, closed)

Trust you on this?
Let's presume, for a moment, that you're a professional scientist devoting his life to studying climate-change; are you suggesting that Clarkson's frequently-published views on this subject are actually correct, or that he's wrong - but his opinion is not to be taken seriously? If the former, you may need to consider a new line of work. If the latter - well, your presumed employment as a scientist actually has no bearing on this. I do not accept that he means his writing to be taken as pure comedy. And to reiterate - yes, his opinions on scientific matters absolutely *would* be more valid if he had any scientific credentials, such as - by way of example - qualifications of any sort.

Clarkson does not simply 'work in entertainment'; gone are the days of top-gear being his sole means of income, and he's increasingly being inserted into newspapers, documentaries, and so forth. He describes himself as a journalist (or a 'broadcaster and writer', on his website), not an entertainer. Your comparison to Frankie Boyle - a stand-up comedian - is therefore utterly obtuse.

As to your implication that I am a 'fucking idiot' - you've yet to prove that Clarkson's delivery is more relevent than his content. Many people have delivered their message in comedic fashion, whilst intending it to be taken seriously. Mark Thomas springs to mind by way of example, but there are many, many more.

I'm not 'irrationally angry'. In fact, I'm not angry at all - it's not me throwing epithets around - but I defend my right to dislike complacent, boorish braggards when they not only poke their ignorance into places it does not belong, but do so in a very public fashion - and I regard that as perfectly sufficient reason for doing so.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Wed 5 May 2010, 17:01, closed)

Actually I'm a professional academic in stem cell research
I do climate change (specifically algal biofuel, if you are interested) research as a sideline that I fund off my own consultancy, because I think it's interesting and useful to society in general. I'd link to some of my research but I'm not planning on making any connection between this place and my work, sorry.

You've not been reading my posts if you need to ask the first question. But to re-iterate. His comments on climate change are irrelevant because they are not presented in an environment that demands that they are taken seriously, nor does he ask that they are. Consequently the comparison with Frankie Boyle is perfectly reasonable. Incidentally, since Mark Thomas is in no way qualified to talk about most of the stuff he does either, the only reason I can assume that you can give him as a positive example is simply that you agree with him and not Clarkson? fair enough, I do too, but that doesn't make Thomas's comments any more valid than Clarksons by your argument.

Oh, I never said you were any kind of idiot. I said that I wasn't a fucking idiot, not that you were.

And, for the third time in as many posts, I absolutely agree that you have the right to dislike him for being boorish.

now, I should be marking final year research so let's just say you've won, eh? Although it's the internet, so or course everyone loses.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 5 May 2010, 17:24, closed)

Well, I think we'll have to agree to differ on this

as I contend that anyone speaking both publically, and incorrectly, on scientific matters should be taken seriously - if only to knock the wind from their sails, and hopefully dissuade people from mindlessly parrotting 'wot dey red in der papers' at the local boozer as if it were set on stone tablets and delivered from Sinai itself. I've heard a lot of unhelpful (and sometimes actively harmful) bullshit being propagated and disseminated in this manner.

I think Clarkson intends to be taken seriously. You do not. That is fine. Out of interest; if you considered that his frequently-given opinions were genuinely held, rather than part of the Clarkson Entertainment Experience - would he get up your nose a little more?

Mark Thomas... Well, I preferred him when it was the Mark Thomas Comedy Product, not the Mark Thomas Product - he focussed on smaller issues, and was more tongue-in-cheek - but in both, he shows some evidence of research, at least - gets actual specialists involved, and whatnot. In any event, I did not mention his name as an example of someone with whom I identify - his name was raised merely to establish that some people do choose to deliver a sincere message in an irreverent style, and by extension, suggest that Clarkson is quite capable of doing the same.

I never thought I would spend this much time deciding whether or not Clarkson's public persona was invented, or innate. Partly, because I've never much cared, and partly, because I would dislike him either way, making the whole question somewhat irrelevent.

Splendid field of research, by the way. For entirely selfish reasons, I'm fervently hoping stem cells live up to their (as summarised in the New Scientist blaggers' guide) early promise.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Wed 5 May 2010, 18:08, closed)