The only real problem with the extremely ignorant mate, is, they're usually too ignorant, to actually have so much as a single inkling that they are in fact, extremely ignorant!
Hence we still have a flat earth society, and a small cadre of folks, who actually believe Australia, one of the largest single land masses in the world, is over populated. And some who just want to return to the good old days.
I can remember a time when most folks made do with hand-me-downs, went without shoes, walked or cycled to work or school, got by with a single meal a day, lived in tin shanties, with dirt floors, with no running water, or toilet facilities, went to bed with a belly growling with hunger. Or did the 7 day, sweat drenched, bent back dawn to dark gut bust, to earn just enough to survive!
Yes, they were the good old days, when far fewer of us were on the planet!
On the other hand, with more of us, we now have more services and options, and our formerly nonexistent safety network replaced with a real one!
The only people going hungry nowadays, are those who inject their welfare up their arms, or piss it against some wall, or pour it into some pokie somewhere, etc excetera and so on!
And the most ignorant of all, are those folk, who think our foreign aid, is just wasted money, even as they pour another beer down their necks, to swell already swollen bellies, or give yet another tug on the arm of a money gobbling, one armed bandit, etc excetera and so on!
Rhrosty.

Oh god. A historian lecturing us on something that requires math to understand!

What next? An article on tiddlywinks? Bet Ken knows more about that than he appears to know about physics & the effects of CO2.

Ken, the last thing we need is another fraud backing academic, like yourself.

You cannot even acknowledge that the tactics of the tobacco companies are those used by the AGW fraud promoters. The Realists simply tell the truth. You have the temerity to refer to Realists as “deniers”. I agree that they deny the misinformation of the AGW fraud, but they do not deny science, because you do not have any, and rely on the pathetic assertion of the mendacious IPCC that it is “94% certain”. This is based on the fact that despite great expenditure, no science hs been produced to show any measurable human effect on climate

If you know of any science which demonstrates any measurable effect of human emissions on climate then let us know about it. Otherwise, acknowledge the truth, and stop supporting the Climate Fraud industry by exploiting those sufficiently ignorant to believe your lies.

So what if science proves smoking is unhealthy.
Does that really justify the draconian dictatorship being constructed around it?

What about liberty?
Some property owners and businesses would happily accept smoking on their premises, but cannot even *choose* to do so.
The option to make that choice has been taken from them.

If the government were truly serious, they'd ban it outright.
But no, they collect too much tax from that "toxic" industry.

What's scientific has very little to do with human life or society.
What's scientific about people's love of birthdays, fireworks, chocolate cake?

I note a reference to "racial ignorance" but no explanation of what that is.

Presumably it's the people who accept what they see with their own eyes who are "ignorant".
While those who deny what they see are "informed".

Carol83

Please refer me to the peer reviewed literature, that contains no modelling and only verifiable data, to support your assertion.

thankyou

ps now tell me the verifiable actual data revealing trends in surface temps, DTR and OLR is all wrong.

Ken may have a point about our tendency to avoid “truths” we don’t want to believe, but his argument is spoiled by his own glaring ideological biases, most evident in the gratuitous swipes at “neoliberal capitalism’ and corporate legal rights. Appeals to authorities like Prince Charles are also less than convincing.

If he had addressed the outrageous, anti-scientific scare campaigns attacking GM food and fracking, he might give the appearance of some objectivity and balance. As it is, he seems to use “agnotology” as a catch-all term of abuse to sneer at those who don’t see the world his way.