You have just given several reasons why I don't buy newspapers. :-)  
Kev C

Jon Bishop FRSA <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> I suspect that to attempt to engage in a debate with him would merely enable him to further 'bait' the debater and enhance his
>> own particular view point. After all that is what trolls attempt to achieve. They bait people into responding and then they make
>> merry at the respondents expense.
>> So your right not to engage with this fool.
>> Kev C
>>
>
>You can't even be sure he actually believes what he writes.
>
>If you look at columnists who cross the floor from one newspaper to
>another, if their new paper is for a different audience then their
>opinions will change to reflect that.
>
>Most journalists are just 'hacks' - they can write copy to suite
>whatever audience and provoke whatever reaction they want. I often
>write letters to the editor with logical fallacies in so that it
>presses the buttons of all people, rational and irrational. Much of
>what I write can be seen as inflammatory, but there is always a
>serious point behind it and they often provide debate which is what
>the newspapers want.
>
>So you might want to question Telegraph readers, who might buy the
>paper because they enjoy reading articles of the tone Delingbole wrote
>using.
>
>If the Daily Mail did not contain coverage of stories that could be
>perceived as anti-foreigner, anti-benefit claimants, then who would
>buy it? Newspapers are businesses at the end of the day, and nearly
>all have a strategy to keep their core readers by providing articles
>that agree with their worldview.
>
>> James Delingpole, Sunday Telegraph, 7 Apr 2013: "I note that warmists are often banging on about the fact that sceptics like
>> Christopher Booker and myself "only" have arts degrees. But actually that's our strength, not our weakness. Our intellectual
>> training qualifies us better than any scientist – social or natural sciences – for us to understand that this is, au fond, not a
>>scientific debate but a cultural and rhetorical one."
>
>I'm convinced climate change is Man-made. But as usual we humans think
>we are so unique and so special and can reverse this natural process.
>We aren't the first evolved species to cause climate change and we
>won't be the last. In the next billion years there is likely to be at
>least another 15 intelligent beings evolve from the dusts of climate
>change to be as intelligent as us. Like us they will use up as much of
>the oil and coal that was naturally recreated by the earth as part of
>its natural cycle of evolution and ecological sustainability. My
>semi-serious policy is we should plant more trees. They will absorb
>much of the carbon we are emitting, and in 40m years time they will be
>able to be used for coal by whichever species comes after us!
>
>Jonathan