Poirot,

You are tying yourself in knots here. Lomborg (former member of greenpeace) accepts the consensus on global warming but is a shrill for the deniers. A bit of an oxymoron there. Still no answer for why Lomborg is accepted by Harvard and Oxford? Perhaps these institutions don't meet the Greens high standards.

Secondly I have warned you about relying on left whinge blogs as references, as you frequently end up looking stupid. If you read the report from the Danish committee you get a very different story from the spin put on it in the left whinge blog.

Lomborg's best selling book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was referred by 4 separate environmental activists to the committee for inappropriate treatment of data in chapter 2 (nothing on the rest of the book). The findings of the committee were:

1 The data in the chapter was insufficient to support the conclusions he reached in the chapter (not that his conclusions were wrong), However,
2 The book was submitted for public consumption and not as a scientific paper, and in the preface Lomborg specifically claimed not to be an environmental expert. As the book was about the overreach of the claims by environmental activists.
As such the complaints were tossed out as irrelevant.

As for the H index:
"The London School of Economics found that (full) professors in the social sciences had average h-indices ranging from 2.8 (in law) to 7.6 (in economics). On average across the disciplines, a full professor in the social sciences had an h-index of 4.9, whereas a senior lecturer (associate professor) had an h-index of 2.2.[6]
Which puts Lomberg as an associate professor at 3.1 well above average for his field.

As quoted in the Economist:
"Dr Lomborg's critics protest too much. They are rattled not because, as they endlessly insist, Dr Lomborg lacks credentials as an environmental scientist and is of no account, but because his book is such a powerful and persuasive assault on the central tenets of the modern environmental movement."

SM,

The only reason the denier industry denies is because its main aim is to preserve the status quo concerning the use of fossil fuels and impeding the development of smarter technology. Lomborg takes another tack in that he says he"accepts" the science, but reckons it ain't worth doing anything about....so same outcome in that the status quo is preserved and fossil fuel interests are protected.

End result is exactly as if he was a denier. The fact that his scientific inexpertise leads him to publish misleading and dishonest material isn't the sort of thing that bestows respect from ones fellow academics.

Btw, we all know that the Abbott govt is doing its damnedest to keep its masters happy by nobbling any climate action in Australia. So it's no surprise that Pyne initially claimed UWA approached the govt on the Lomborg arrangement.

UWA quickly shot back that it was in fact approached by the govt, obviously keen to install someone like Lomborg who, discredited as he is, was looking for a home.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-23/uwa-academic-contradicts-pyne-on-policy-centre/6413984

This apparently confirmed by Pyne's recent tweet:

"Don't worry, I'm certain we'll find a new home for the Australian Consensus Centre @BjornLomborg @uwanews #auspoI"

SM,

"As quoted in the Economist:
"Dr Lomborg's critics protest too much. They are rattled not because, as they endlessly insist, Dr Lomborg lacks credentials as an environmental scientist and is of no account, but because his book is such a powerful and persuasive assault on the central tenets of the modern environmental movement."

The Economist, eh....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg

"In 2002, Lomborg and the Environmental Assessment Institute founded the Copenhagen Consensus, which seeks to establish priorities for advancing global welfare using methodologies based on the theory of welfare economics. A panel of prominent economists was assembled to evaluate and rank a series of problems every four years. The project was funded largely by the Danish government, and co-sponsored by The Economist. A book summarizing the conclusions of the economists' first assessment, Global Crises, Global Solutions, edited by Lomborg, was published in October 2004 by Cambridge University Press."

Well, they would say that wouldn't they...Lol!

"....In 2012, Denmark withdrew its funding, and the Center faced imminent closure. Lomborg left the country and reconstituted the Center as a US non-profit organization, based in Massachusetts. In 2015, Lomborg described the Center's funding as "a little more than $1m a year...from private donations"

Here's another book:

http://yalepress.yale.edu/Yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300161038

The Lomborg Deception - Yale University Press

Dear Shadow Minister,

If you were to click onto the link I gave - the
site for the awesomelibrary does come up which
gives an entire series of various articles in
Time, CBS, LA Times, et cetera on the subject -
all you have to do is click onto the various
headings given. And if you still can't find the
research - I can't help you.

otb,

Go away!

Fox,

That is your reply to rebuttal of your claimed difference between 'progressive' and 'conservative' brains, to deny the science with, "Go away"?

I have a feeling that you have used the same ridiculous claim before and it was similarly rebutted by me. Yet as per usual you do it again in the full knowledge that it is absolute pap. You can't even find the source of your claims, which is why you kept fobbing off the poster who queried you on it.

Once again for the benefit of others, correlation is NOT causation. It is the usual mistake of tabloid hacks. Might as well say that the crowing of the rooster causes the sun to rise.
[from my reply of Saturday, 9 May 2015 10:40:10 PM]

So much for that 'Awesome' site you referred others to. Tell us now, does it also state the obvious, that correlation id NOT causation? Does it cite any peer reviews of experiments that prove what you assert as proved fact?

The answer is and emphatic, 'No'. However you already knew that because you have been told before. Yet you repeat it, rudely wasting other posters' time.

P,

Every now and again you set yourself up for a good hiding when you don't check your facts.

The climate consensus committee was not a cluster of climate deniers but a group of six with Lomborg as director collating and editing the reports, and the team of 5 prominent economists, 4 of whom are Nobel Laureates (serious intellectual horsepower) who review climate related problems from an economic angle and recommend strategies and solutions.

Given that this committee's economic focus and prominence it is not surprising that The Economist wanted to get involved. For you to then state that The Economist is going to risk its reputation on an unrelated whitewash of BL's book is complete horse crap.

Finally citing a book by Howard Friel an intellectual nobody is a bit of a joke.

Foxy,

I took your advice and used the search engine on the site to find five articles all referring to the one dubious study.

In future if referring to particular article, please provide the link to the article, as what you provided was marginally better than linking to google.com.