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, Reply)