Harry's Place has a post by 'brownie' who, one presumes, is a disciple of his namesake - if one is comparing incoherent thought processes.
Admittedly, I have not seen the programme in which the subject of the post took place, however if Alan Titmarsh did 'question' Joan Ruddock about her views - where is the 'crime'? Where is the 'crime' in questioning Ruddock's "advocacy of what the world’s pre-eminent climate scientists agree is happening right here right now"? Because the audience "clapped their uninformed approval" means that the audience were wrong in their opinion? So, 'brownie's' views are the only true view?
"Un-feckin-believable" is the comment from brownie that follows the previous quote. What is undeniably 'believable' is the fact that none of the commenters, at the time of writing - appear to agree with 'brownie's' views!
One is reminded of this scene from the film 'Inherit The Wind*' which dealt with questioning that the Bible was the only book on evolution. Equate the argument in this clip to 'pro' and 'anti' in the global warming/climate change debate. To quote the character, played by Spencer Tracy, we the so-called Deniers, want the 'right to think'!
Brownie's 'mantra' that the 'world's pre-eminent scientists' - which they are most definitely not in that a number of them are not 'scientists' - demonstrates that if he and his ilk were told to 'stick their heads in a gas oven' because it would help combat global warming/climate change, they would do so.
Go, brownie, Go!
* One of the 'best' films ever made - if you have not seen it, do!