The Hard Shoulder with Ivan Yates (interregnum)

Scott Tenorman

eagle eye wrote: »

Hook was clearly opinionated but he'd invite on somebody from the other side and argue with them. He didn't enlist people with similar views and just have a discussion where all agree and try and tell you what way you should be thinking.
We need to give both sides of the argument and let people decide for themselves.

No he invited people with the opposite view on and wouldn’t let them speak.

There is an important difference there

tototoe

Scott Tenorman wrote:

No he invited people with the opposite view on and wouldn’t let them speak.

True. No loss from the airwaves imo.

southstar

eagle eye wrote: »

Clearly even though I say I don't like Trump you are going to make up your own mind that I do. Unbelievable.
I want straight down the middle debate. I don't want one-sided, this is how you should think, bull crap.
This is why I stopped tuning in to newstalk.

My post isn't really about Trump at all, it's about the clear agenda to tell you how you should think which has become prevalent in Irish media and very much so on newstalk.

I remember the days of Charles Mitchell when he read the news with no opinion, just the plain facts of what had happened. We need to get back to that and let people think for themselves.

Of course Charles Mitchell just read the news.. that's what newsreaders do... Matt Cooper does not read the news. As for Trump.. can this man open his mouth without lying or **** stirring.. I like to see this pointed out.. and not be cowed into grovelling silence

Dick Swiveller

Morgans wrote: »

It's clear that Trump and his uglier-opinionated friends has successfully used this 'we need to present both sides to be impartial' trope of the media to gain traction. They are not interested in looking to compromise or moderate their views, to come to a common ground or an agreed policy, but to simply be given equal time on the most popular programmes to gain legitamicy to what was often previously seen as disgusting views. The media is used as a tool to simply promote their ugly viewpoints. When they don't get their way, you next step in the playbook is to claim that political correctness is gone mad, I say what I think and Im the only one with the guts to tell the truth. Claiming free speech rights when not getting access. Its effective and people are falling for it hook line and sinker. The media of course follow the controversy and hope that people getting riled up leads to ad revenue, and forget any good that they might do.

The caravan of invaders before the latest mid-terms is the most obvious recent evidence. Absolutely no interest in the actual issues of immigration, challenges to public services etc in the states but Trump and his supporters use the media for their own ends. The sooner the media realise that this 'we need to present both sides of the argument' is being played, the better for everyone in general.

Eh the media don't present both sides of the argument. That's the complaint people have. Btw, I realise Newstalk are a commercial station and aren't required to be balanced per se. That's fine. But why do people on this thread and others keep dismissing the idea that there is suffocating groupthink among Irish journalists. Bar a tiny few, they all hold the same opinions. If Obama had eased tensions with Kim Jong Un Cooper and Kenny and Colette Browne and Kitty O'Shea would have been falling over themselves to praise him. The overall reaction to Trump's meeting with Kim was negative. It's just so predictable - and laughable that people think our media aren't mouthpieces for the Democratic Party.

Also, you make it sound like your opinion is objectively true and everyone else is wrong. Not everyone thinks Trump is Hitler the second.

Dick Swiveller

Scott Tenorman wrote: »

No he invited people with the opposite view on and wouldn’t let them speak.

There is an important difference there

You're exaggerating.

Morgans

Stoolcup wrote: »

Eh the media don't present both sides of the argument. That's the complaint people have. Btw, I realise Newstalk are a commercial station and aren't required to be balanced per se. That's fine. But why do people on this thread and others keep dismissing the idea that there is suffocating groupthink among Irish journalists. Bar a tiny few, they all hold the same opinions. If Obama had eased tensions with Kim Jong Un Cooper and Kenny and Colette Browne and Kitty O'Shea would have been falling over themselves to praise him. The overall reaction to Trump's meeting with Kim was negative. It's just so predictable - and laughable that people think our media aren't mouthpieces for the Democratic Party.

Also, you make it sound like your opinion is objectively true and everyone else is wrong. Not everyone thinks Trump is Hitler the second.

Yes. There are a couple of things in this. The media and this 'we must present both sides' comes from a very old fashioned debate routine as if its fair and balanced. The battleground of ideas. Let the best orator win. However, this old fashioned debate idea is based on the assumption that people are coming to the debate in good faith.

Trump is happy to throw out nonsense knowing that the media will present both sides - coverage of the caravan being a good one. This has allowed fringe, often racist ideas to get aired and given legitimacy. 'There are good people on both sides' about the Charlotteville, The fact that they used doctored photos to back banning Jim Acosta this week shows their disingenuous nature.

So what does the media do in this case? If you call out their lies, you get called for lacking respect. Its clear that Trump, his supporters, and even those in the media promoting him are not acting in good faith. They are happy to say that there is an agenda against them if they are asked any question about their lies. You cannot call thier lies, lies. Despite lying constantly and obviously, the same people with the same ideas are presented again and again. I personally wouldnt have them on, and have a clear impartial discussion about the issue at hand - the pros and the cons.

At the extreme, there are those in the media who can see how to make a quick buck by presenting these people. Whether its whole channels like in the states, or individual arseholes like here, pretending to stand up for those who are silenced by the bias in the media. The same old stories over and over again. Its the anti-liberal, the pro-choice, the anti-vaccinators, the anti-feminist, the anti-immigrant, the racist, the climate change deniers etc (the pro gun laws in the states). All make for 'good' radio (in that gets people riled up enough to spend 30c) and feed into the idea that people are victimised for not having their way. I see Hook as one of those arseholes. Yates, not quite in that league and reserves the same routine for cyclists, half in jest.

One thing that you are right about is that the irish media is too pro democratic party and in love with the Clintons and werent nearly as critical of Obama as they should have been.

eagle eye

My thoughts aren't about Trump, it's just that he was the topic on the show that I had no choice to listen to.
This could have been about anybody if they decide he is not PC enough for them or has alternate views to the way they want you to think.
I seen this in the US when I lived over there and most people will tell you that the average American is not very smart and very gullible. They did elect Trump!!!
When I lived over there in the mid nineties the most evil man on the planet according to their media was Yassar Arafat. I had a totally different view of the man because I heard my news without bias in Ireland and I was aware that Arafat was trying to find a way to make peace for about a decade before I moved to the US.
The news and current affairs should be unbiased at all times imo. This used to be the case.
Newstalk is horrendous, started off as a great radio station but it's become poisonous and insulting to anybody with a modicum of intelligence who likes to consider all the available information and make up their own mind about things.
We've seen this with the gay marriage referendum. There was an air about the place that was telling you that you better not dare even think about voting against it or even talk like you might not be certain you were voting for it.
Same thing with Brexit, you get shouted down if you have a view that it might be a good thing. Every proponent of Brexit is an idiot in the eyes of the Irish media.
If you have the temerity to even mention Irexit you are in big trouble. The media will attempt to laugh at you first but if you get any traction then they will do their best to destroy your character. It doesn't suit them so you are not allowed to think that way.
Did you notice that polls are not as accurate as they used to be? Why do you think this is? Could it be because people are actually afraid to give their real views on things?
The gay marriage referendum wasn't nearly as one-sided as one would have expected.
Peter Casey generated a lot of support by giving out about Travellers. Our media attempted to laugh him off at first, when it looked like he had a bit of traction they revealed that he didn't even live here and tried everything they could to put him down. There was a really good candidate in the field, the incumbent, who saved our PC media from the embarrassment of a President who shouted down Travellers.

Now I hope you don't read this and form the opinion that I'm pro-Trump, pro-Brexit and Irexit, anti-gay and anti-Traveller.

I'm just pointing out that we need to hear both sides and not have people trying to brainwash us.

Morgans

I think Irexit, climate change, anti vaccinations etc could be easily discussed by experts in the field whether its economics, political historians, social scientists, doctors etc. In fact, those in the media who do this are labelled 'part of the liberal media bubble' and the expert opinion is talked about as if they are divorced from the real people. It doesnt matter the levels of domestic abuse of travellers, it doesnt matter about their suicide rates, and whether they deserve support. Not sure how much of an airing that got. Could be immigrants and direct provision, could be the poor - whoever is the target. This isn't tackled by challenging the arguments, instead its challenged by anecdotes and an appeal to the the worst within people - the idea that there are those getting support of their backs. It plays out all the time. It is these hacks that I would happily do without on the media. It generates more 30c texts than the experts. If it was unbiased previously (not nearly as much as you would think, it was always a tool of those in power) because of the lack of political hacks on the airwaves, making their living by being professional aggregators.

On the Peter Casey thing, if he is claiming that travellers (or whoever) are benefiting from the taxpayer while not contributing, then how he pays, or more importantly, chooses not to pay tax in Ireland is especially relevant. He was happy to avoid paying tax when it suited him. There are plenty saying Peter Casey was brave for speaking up against the consensus. It is funny how Hook and to a lesser extent Yates like to claim they do the same but are never brave enough to discuss Denis O'Brien's taxpaying, all the while claiming that they are free speech defenders.

Tell me how

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm just pointing out that we need to hear both sides and not have people trying to brainwash us.

Generally I agree with this but it can be difficult. At what point do we say, hang on, there is a common agreement on this topic so we are leaning towards accepting that as a given.

People on the fringe with some hair brained ideas often claim media bias because they are not being given equal opportunity to air their views. Can you imagine the presidential campaign if we had ended up with Gemma O'Dherty on the ballot as well.

She claims the media is horrendously biased, should she continue to be given air time to counter claims that vaccinations save lives?

Should a climate change topic involve someone who claims it is nonsense just to ensure balance?

It is a tricky situation. I guarantee that RTE received complaints about Casey on the LLS from people claiming that he should not have been allowed on to peddle hate as they see it and some saying he is owed an apology for how RTE attacked him as they see it. Where is the truth in this instance? It is entirely subjective.

Dick Swiveller

Tell me how wrote: »

Generally I agree with this but it can be difficult. At what point do we say, hang on, there is a common agreement on this topic so we are leaning towards accepting that as a given.

People on the fringe with some hair brained ideas often claim media bias because they are not being given equal opportunity to air their views. Can you imagine the presidential campaign if we had ended up with Gemma O'Dherty on the ballot as well.

She claims the media is horrendously biased, should she continue to be given air time to counter claims that vaccinations save lives?

Should a climate change topic involve someone who claims it is nonsense just to ensure balance?

It is a tricky situation. I guarantee that RTE received complaints about Casey on the LLS from people claiming that he should not have been allowed on to peddle hate as they see it and some saying he is owed an apology for how RTE attacked him as they see it. Where is the truth in this instance? It is entirely subjective.

As you well know, her arguments about media bias have nothing to do wtih vaccinations. You are trying to paint her in a bad light.

It's not very difficult. Just switch Marian Finucane on a Sunday and listen to the discussion during the paper review. Every panelist - and the presenter - will be in agreement on every single issue. That is called groupthink, echo chamber - call it what you want. I've noticed that those who argue that there doesn't exist widespread bias often get on their high horse and say things like "Why should we take X seriously? X says this and therefore he shouldn't be heard". This is pure intolerance - and a common problem with trendy liberal types. Your opinions are that - opinions. Everyone is entitled to have their own.

Tell me how

Stoolcup wrote: »

As you well know, her arguments about media bias have nothing to do wtih vaccinations. You are trying to paint her in a bad light.

It's not very difficult. Just switch Marian Finucane on a Sunday and listen to the discussion during the paper review. Every panelist - and the presenter - will be in agreement on every single issue. That is called groupthink, echo chamber - call it what you want. I've noticed that those who argue that there doesn't exist widespread bias often get on their high horse and say things like "Why should we take X seriously? X says this and therefore he shouldn't be heard". This is pure intolerance - and a common problem with trendy liberal types. Your opinions are that - opinions. Everyone is entitled to have their own.

I am trying to paint Gemma O'Doherty in a bad light? WTF? Have I control of her Twitter account?

This is the world we live in. Everyone thinks their opinion should be heard (no matter how off the charts) and if not, then the media is obviously biased.

Is there anyone, anywhere who can be considered truly impartial?

Dick Swiveller

Tell me how wrote: »

I am trying to paint Gemma O'Doherty in a bad light? WTF? Have I control of her Twitter account?

This is the world we live in. Everyone thinks their opinion should be heard (no matter how off the charts) and if not, then the media is obviously biased.

Is there anyone, anywhere who can be considered truly impartial?

I'm not sure if you read my post. Gemma O'Doherty makes a lot of valid points about media ownership and bias. Yet what's the thing you bring up? Vaccines. Smear, smear, smear. Nothing do with her points about media bias.

I'm not sure if you're trolling at this stage. Nobody says every opinion should be heard. The problem is there is only one opinion ever heard. All journalists hold the same opinions on almost every issue. That's the problem. There are a lot of people who agreed with Peter Casey's comments about travellers. Would you have known that listening to our wonderful journos? Of course not. Just after the election many of them were wondering if Casey should even have been given a "platform". It's called groupthink. This isn't very difficult.

eagle eye

Tell me how wrote:

Generally I agree with this but it can be difficult. At what point do we say, hang on, there is a common agreement on this topic so we are leaning towards accepting that as a given.

You don't ever have to accept anything as a given. If you let people air their views and converse you will find that most move towards something acceptable to both sides.

Tell me how wrote:

People on the fringe with some hair brained ideas often claim media bias because they are not being given equal opportunity to air their views. Can you imagine the presidential campaign if we had ended up with Gemma O'Dherty on the ballot as well.

She claims the media is horrendously biased, should she continue to be given air time to counter claims that vaccinations save lives?

I don't think she'd have got many votes. If she got the support of enough county council she should be on the ticket imo.

Tell me how wrote:

Should a climate change topic involve someone who claims it is nonsense just to ensure balance?

Yes it should, I think every bit day deserves to be heard no matter how crazy their ideas.

Tell me how wrote:

It is a tricky situation. I guarantee that RTE received complaints about Casey on the LLS from people claiming that he should not have been allowed on to peddle hate as they see it and some saying he is owed an apology for how RTE attacked him as they see it. Where is the truth in this instance? It is entirely subjective.

You see I listened to what Casey had to say. He didn't peddle hate. He said we cannot afford to pay for ethnic status for Travellers and argued that we are being racist by saying they ate different to the rest of Irish born people. I don't see any hate there but the haters will jump on his back and we get told that he is a racist which is untrue based on all I heard him say.

eagle eye

Apologies about some words not making sense but this auto correct feature messes things up at times.
If I go back to edit on the app then the quotes disappear and what I've just posted doesn't make much sense.

Tell me how

eagle eye wrote: »

Apologies about some words not making sense but this auto correct feature messes things up at times.
If I go back to edit on the app then the quotes disappear and what I've just posted doesn't make much sense.

Yeah, the app is (was) painful like that. You had to copy the text you had quoted and paste it in to your edited comment window before reposting.

I say (was) above. It has disappeared from the Google Play store. There were 2 versions on there. Both are gone.

I suspect they trying to push the responsive site thing.

meeeeh

Stoolcup wrote: »

I've noticed that those who argue that there doesn't exist widespread bias often get on their high horse and say things like "Why should we take X seriously? X says this and therefore he shouldn't be heard". This is pure intolerance - and a common problem with trendy liberal types. Your opinions are that - opinions. Everyone is entitled to have their own.

That's not true. In case of Irexit only coherent people arguing for it are the ex ambassador to Canada and one of the rugby guys ( I can't remember their names and I'm too lazy to look). They got quite a bit of space to air their views but their views are held by small minority, why would they be equally represented. It's also hard to find climate changes deniers with science background and it's not fair to give credence to some flat earther and let him discuss the subject with someone who researched climate change. There was very little debare about blasphemy because nobody except Ronan Mullen actually cared enough to keep it in the construction. He got extra exposure and free promotion for his re-election because he was almost the only one arguing for it.

If you have a group of ten people and only one person has different opinion than the rest, should they all get equal time to speak or should the one with opposing view get 50% and the other side 50%.

Yes there is liberal bias in media but at the same time the presidential candidate who went against the rest got by far the most exposure. Trump played media and got excellent coverage value for the money he invested into the campaign.

Tell me how

eagle eye wrote: »

You don't ever have to accept anything as a given. If you let people air their views and converse you will find that most move towards something acceptable to both sides.

There are things which are factual. It is a dangerous position to try to always find middle ground. It certainly should be the intent when there is confusion or absence of clarity at the outset but when things become known and provable as fact they should be recognized as such.

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't think she'd have got many votes. If she got the support of enough county council she should be on the ticket imo.

Yes. Absolutely. But by that rational, dustin the turkey could be on the ticket I'm being facetious but my point is there are limits to what can be considered reasonable.

eagle eye wrote: »

Yes it should, I think every bit day deserves to be heard no matter how crazy their ideas.

This is dangerous in my view. When doing this, the layperson can come away thinking, you know what, there's two opinions, they must be both right. This leads to stagnation when action is required. Specifically for many years in relation to climate change. The vast amount of science indicated mankinds responsibility for the severity of it yet a press release by OPEC or dubious scientists allowed policy makers to delay action.

eagle eye wrote: »

You see I listened to what Casey had to say. He didn't peddle hate. He said we cannot afford to pay for ethnic status for Travellers and argued that we are being racist by saying they ate different to the rest of Irish born people. I don't see any hate there but the haters will jump on his back and we get told that he is a racist which is untrue based on all I heard him say.

There are several threads on Casey. I agree in that the words which came out of his mouth were not specifically hateful but I also think he knew that many would not analyse them but would support him as they felt he was saying what they were thinking. He was smart enough to manipulate a portion of society to vote for him without actually saying something hateful. In my view.

Tell me how

Stoolcup wrote: »

I'm not sure if you read my post. Gemma O'Doherty makes a lot of valid points about media ownership and bias. Yet what's the thing you bring up? Vaccines. Smear, smear, smear. Nothing do with her points about media bias.

I'm not sure if you're trolling at this stage. Nobody says every opinion should be heard. The problem is there is only one opinion ever heard. All journalists hold the same opinions on almost every issue. That's the problem. There are a lot of people who agreed with Peter Casey's comments about travellers. Would you have known that listening to our wonderful journos? Of course not. Just after the election many of them were wondering if Casey should even have been given a "platform". It's called groupthink. This isn't very difficult.

Have just seen this now. I love how you use the word groupthink speaking as a member of a group where 95% of members switched their allegiance to Peter Casey over what they perceived his comments to mean.

And calling me a troll for expressing apathy for the motivations of Gemma? Why didn't you follow her playbook completely and threaten me with legal proceedings.

Dick Swiveller

Tell me how wrote: »

Have just seen this now. I love how you use the word groupthink speaking as a member of a group where 95% of members switched their allegiance to Peter Casey over what they perceived his comments to mean.

And calling me a troll for expressing apathy for the motivations of Gemma? Why didn't you follow her playbook completely and threaten me with legal proceedings.

I notice you didn't address any of the points I made.

Dick Swiveller

meeeeh wrote: »

That's not true. In case of Irexit only coherent people arguing for it are the ex ambassador to Canada and one of the rugby guys ( I can't remember their names and I'm too lazy to look). They got quite a bit of space to air their views but their views are held by small minority, why would they be equally represented. It's also hard to find climate changes deniers with science background and it's not fair to give credence to some flat earther and let him discuss the subject with someone who researched climate change. There was very little debare about blasphemy because nobody except Ronan Mullen actually cared enough to keep it in the construction. He got extra exposure and free promotion for his re-election because he was almost the only one arguing for it.

If you have a group of ten people and only one person has different opinion than the rest, should they all get equal time to speak or should the one with opposing view get 50% and the other side 50%.

Yes there is liberal bias in media but at the same time the presidential candidate who went against the rest got by far the most exposure. Trump played media and got excellent coverage value for the money he invested into the campaign.

You offer bizarre examples. As far as I know there wasn't *any* debate on the blasphemy referendum - for or against. Likewise climate change. I've never heard any kind of debate on air. As for Irexit and our relationship with the EU, there's nothing wrong with a bit of healthy skepticism - whether you want to remain a member or don't. It does get a bit tiresome hearing every journalist parroting the Europhile line. This is a perfect example of groupthink. Every discussion programme - EU good, UK evil. I say this as someone who would vote to remain.

Casey got the most exposure because the media reacted hysterically to what were pretty benign comments.

Dick Swiveller

Tell me how wrote: »

There are things which are factual. It is a dangerous position to try to always find middle ground. It certainly should be the intent when there is confusion or absence of clarity at the outset but when things become known and provable as fact they should be recognized as such.



Yes. Absolutely. But by that rational, dustin the turkey could be on the ticket I'm being facetious but my point is there are limits to what can be considered reasonable.



This is dangerous in my view. When doing this, the layperson can come away thinking, you know what, there's two opinions, they must be both right. This leads to stagnation when action is required. Specifically for many years in relation to climate change. The vast amount of science indicated mankinds responsibility for the severity of it yet a press release by OPEC or dubious scientists allowed policy makers to delay action.



There are several threads on Casey. I agree in that the words which came out of his mouth were not specifically hateful but I also think he knew that many would not analyse them but would support him as they felt he was saying what they were thinking. He was smart enough to manipulate a portion of society to vote for him without actually saying something hateful. In my view.

It was the media who reacted hysterically to what were perfectly reasonable remarks. Blame the people you keep defending.

Tell me how

Stoolcup wrote: »

I notice you didn't address any of the points I made.

I've addressed them already and you read it as trolling. Forgive me I don't get involved.

i71jskz5xu42pb

Stoolcup wrote: »

Likewise climate change. I've never heard any kind of debate on air.

Presumably, following other reputable news agencies' lead, they are not engaging with the the kind of crackpots that want to "debate" climate change.

What’s the BBC’s position?
• Man-made climate change exists: If the science proves it we should report it. The BBC accepts that the best science on the issue is the IPCC’s position, set out above.

• Be aware of ‘false balance’: As climate change is accepted as happening, you do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate. Although there are those who disagree with the IPCC’s position, very few of them now go so far as to deny that climate change is happening. To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken. However, the BBC does not exclude any shade of opinion from its output, and with appropriate challenge from a knowledgeable interviewer, there may be occasions to hear from a denier.

• There are occasions where contrarians and sceptics should be included within climate change and sustainability debates. These may include, for instance, debating the speed and intensity of what will happen in the future, or what policies government should adopt. Again, journalists need to be aware of the guest’s viewpoint and how to challenge it effectively. As with all topics, we must make clear to the audience which organisation the speaker represents, potentially how that group is funded and whether they are speaking with authority from a scientific perspective – in short, making their affiliations and previously expressed opinions clear.

meeeeh

Stoolcup wrote: »

You offer bizarre examples. As far as I know there wasn't *any* debate on the blasphemy referendum - for or against. Likewise climate change. I've never heard any kind of debate on air.

Then you should listen more, I heard both. But there is only so much discussion that can be done if in case of climate change there is overwhelming evidence to support it and in case of blasphemy even churches didn't oppose the removal from constitution.

Dick Swiveller

Frida Loose Grindstone wrote: »

Presumably, following other reputable news agencies' lead, they are not engaging with the the kind of crackpots that want to "debate" climate change.

I promise I'm not an heretic, so there's no need to thought police me. I don't know anything about it.

Hurrache

eagle eye wrote: »

I remember the days of Charles Mitchell when he read the news with no opinion, just the plain facts of what had happened. We need to get back to that and let people think for themselves.

It doesn't apply here as it's not a straight out news show. You still get the way you expect on news bulletins across the radio and TV spectrum.

Tell me how

Stoolcup wrote: »

I promise I'm not an heretic, so there's no need to thought police me. I don't know anything about it.

If you know nothing about climate change you must be choosing to remain in this position.

Every conversation around local and international extreme weather events has been followed by conversations on the impact environmental pollution has had on increased global average temperatures and the subsequent effect this has had in affecting weather patterns.

Ignorance is no longer an excuse in this respect. Try Google for ten minutes

Dick Swiveller

Tell me how wrote: »

If you know nothing about climate change you must be choosing to remain in this position.

Every conversation around local and international extreme weather events has been followed by conversations on the impact environmental pollution has had on increased global average temperatures and the subsequent effect this has had in affecting weather patterns.

Ignorance is no longer an excuse in this respect. Try Google for ten minutes

Do you realise how complicated climate science is? There's a reason it takes years to become a scientist in this field. You don't become an expert by googling for 10 minutes.

Tell me how

Stoolcup wrote: »

Do you realise how complicated climate science is? There's a reason it takes years to become a scientist in this field. You don't become an expert by googling for 10 minutes.

You're not going to be giving evidence to a parliamentary enquiry after this.

You'll simply have moved from "I know nothing about it" to "I read a couple of articles on a scientific website and there's actually a lot changing very quickly and human practices are clearly a factor."

Are you suggesting that you consider yourself to be an expert on everything else you comment on here or is it just climate change you know nothing about?

The above will give you enough to join in the conversation.

Dick Swiveller

Tell me how wrote: »

You're not going to be giving evidence to a parliamentary enquiry after this.

You'll simply have moved from "I know nothing about it" to "I read a couple of articles on a scientific website and there's actually a lot changing very quickly and human practices are clearly a factor."

Are you suggesting that you consider yourself to be an expert on everything else you comment on here or is it just climate change you know nothing about?

The above will give you enough to join in the conversation.

Well, you don't need any expertise to comment on political, moral, ethical matters. Why would I even attempt to discuss climate science. It would be like me trying to discuss quantum theory. It's not going to happen