This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
It seems to me there is more than a whiff of anticipated failure in the utterances of both these commentators, though I hesitate to voice it too strongly since we don't want to feel complacent, but there is something faintly encouraging in Porritt resorting to a plea for the third sector (the first I've heard of it, by the way) and describing his concerns as "- the Clarkson/Daily Mail effect; an army of denialists filling the blogosphere with a combination of vitriol and errant rubbish; a tendency not to believe politicians on anything, let alone climate change, and so on." (Clarkson? Hmm. I was afraid he was an embarrassment to the cause but he could be due some respect after all. By all means let him acknowledge there is an "army of denialists" since it basically says that not everyone agrees with him and he recognises the fact. Hopefully it won't be long before he acknowledges that some of these denialists are climate scientists.)
Moonbat? well, having denied the right of non-scientists to be credited with intelligence or the right to an opinion, if they oppose AGW, it now seems he is reaching out to non-climate scientists, in fact the whole rank and file of the man in the street, oh, wait a minute .... he is referring to what he calls "humanitarians" I guess a Humanitarian is thus any non-climate scientist who is prepared to speak in support of AGW and, by extension, anyone who speaks against is not a humanitarian. Nice one, Dingbat (Sorry; Moonbat).
I think Porritt has an exaggerated view of Clarkson's importance to AGW scepticism in the UK. He has been running a sort of vendetta against Clarkson for years. Even Clarkson is mystified by it, as he explains in this newspaper article from about three years ago:
The origin of Porritt's tension, as mentioned in the article, seems to come from when Porritt appeared as a guest on a chat show hosted by Clarkson in the early 00s. (Clarkson was given a chat show while Top Gear was off the air for a year or two.) In the interview Porritt was apparently made to look foolish and was given a generally much harder time than he gets on Newsnight, but the broadcast version of the interview was edited in a manner that was a lot more favourable to Porritt.
The only significant contribution I can think of that Clarkson has made to AGW scepticism is the Top Gear special from a few years ago which involved driving a car to the North Pole (the magnetic pole rather than the geographic pole). Any Greenie propaganda that the Arctic is breaking up was seriously set back by that programme.
I seem to remember my various pets dying of things entirely unrelated to the climate (getting lost, getting bitten by a snake, getting put down due to being savage, old age, cancer and cancer being the complete list), but apparently I am wrong. Not only that, but now the media would have me feel guilty over opposing the environmental movement, and would have my countrymen despise me for it.
Anything to demonise rational scepticism, it seems.
Well, the recent hot weather has so upset our cat that she took to sleeping on our bedroom floor. Now that the reain's back, she's back on our bed.
Not at all sure what that means, other than the influence of height on AGW/Climate Change. Mind you, she's never eaten Porridge. Sorry, I must mean Porrit.