Foxy,

While I don't have a Phd in neuroscience I do have a degree in economics and quantitative methods (data analysis). And have now actually now read the report. Dr Ryota Kanai's graphs show no variation in either part of the brain for the bulk of the sample only a small deviation in the small group claiming to be conservative, being slightly bigger in the RA and smaller in the AC. Statistically, claiming this as proof would be flimsy in the least, which Dr Ryota Kanai does not claim. He does not even attempt to portray this as a definitive study, questions whether this is reflected in the general population, and suggests that this might be the basis for a bigger study.

So the problem is not what Dr RK claims, rather the inflated unsubstantiated claims found in the left whinge blogs to which you refer.

Poirot,

FYI the committee you were trying to rubbish:

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/

The point you were trying to make (and failed) was that BL was a crack pot with no academic credentials. And no matter how many environmental activists you line up to criticise him, much of what he says has merit, and support from the economics community from whose modeling techniques he uses.

What I object to is the shrill voices of the environmental researchers advocating censorship towards an individual that has shone the harsh light of economics on their previously closed shop. These cosseted academics in secure tenure continue to produce an stream of studies, peer reviewed by each other, many of which are unmitigated drivel. This takes the concept of academic freedom and drop kicks it into the trash.

Personally I had never even heard of BL prior to the screeching in the media about his involvement in WA, and never looked into his work until a few days ago, but certainly will from now.

SM,

"Personally I had never even heard of BL prior to the screeching in the media about his involvement in WA..."

Well there you go!

Considering you've gone way out of your way to build this joker up into someone of serious substance, I'm a tad surprised. The rest of us were well aware of Lomborg.

Does it occur to you if Mr Lomborg is so widely respected and highly regarded in his field that it's a tad surprising that he should be defunded by the Danish govt and has obviously been swanning around trying to get another gig.

Along comes the motley outfit that comprises the Abbott govt and - Voila! - a match made in heaven.

The reason UWA reassessed their decision to host this fella was that ultimately they realised that their substantial reputation would be trashed - what does that tell you?

No-one is advocating censorship of Lomborg. But to have this govt showering millions of dollars on a uni to host someone of Lomborg's reputation while simultaneously cutting funding and trashing other areas of domestic research is outrageous.

P,

Obviously you don't read the links I provide:

"The Copenhagen Consensus Center is a think tank that researches the smartest solutions for the world's biggest problems by cost-benefit. Its studies are conducted by more than 100 economists from internationally renowned institutions, including seven Nobel Laureates, to advise policy-makers and philanthropists how to spend their money most effectively. The Center's advocacy for data-driven prioritization was voted into the top 20 campaigns worldwide in a think tank survey conducted by University of Pennsylvania."

Its peer reviewed reports are some of the most heavily cited in the world and as you pointed out was defunded in 2012 shortly after the Socialist/Green party came to power in Denmark.

As for BL: "his credentials are impressive: not only is he Danish, gay and invariably clad in a T-shirt and jeans, but his books on environmental issues are heavily cited, including by an array of the bien-pensant that ­ranges from Barack Obama to Ban Ki-moon."

In the words of the UWA Chancellor the project was cancelled "The scale of the strong and passionate emotional reaction was one that the university did not predict" Not for reputational reasons as you so dishonestly claimed.

However his crimes include that he has argued that the costs and benefits of devoting scarce resources to mitigating that risk should be compared to those of addressing the planet’s other pressing woes. Where that might lead hardly needs to be spelled out. After all, cost-benefit analysis forces one to identify the objective being sought, measure the sacrifice seeking it would impose and specify any uncertainty about the gains that would be achieved. Moreover, it exposes those estimates, and their assumptions, to public scrutiny, making it possible for them to be tested as new information comes to light, which is the very last thing the environmental lobby wants.

Obviously no degree in computer keyboard skills. When the discussion was about Port Botany SM had a degree in Engineering, now he has a "degree in economics and quantitative methods". also claimed to have done a bit of law at uni as well. Please don't start a thread about a hippopotamus, SM might be inclined to enlighten us with the hippo knowledge he got from his veterinary science course.

SM I found a link for you, no comment?

SM,

"Its peer reviewed reports are some of the most heavily cited in the world and as you pointed out was defunded in 2012 shortly after the Socialist/Green party came to power in Denmark."

Let's have a peek at Lomborg's personal citation history.

http://conservationbytes.com/2015/04/24/lomborg-a-detailed-citation-analysis/

"So, in the absence of a Google Scholar profile for Lomborg, I combed through his Google Scholar entries and dumped all the duplicates, I ignored all the magazine and newspaper articles (e.g., you can’t count opinion editorials in The Wall Street Journal as evidence of an academic track record), I cut out all non-articles (things Lomborg hadn’t actually written), omitted any website diatribes (e.g., blog posts and the like) and calculated his citation profile.

Based on my analysis, Lomborg’s Google Scholar h-index is 4 for his peer-reviewed articles. If I was being particularly generous and included all of Lomborg’s books, which have by far the most citations, then his h-index climbs to 9. However, none of his books is peer-reviewed, and in the case of his most infamous book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, it has been entirely discredited. As such, any reasonable academic selection committee would omit any metrics based on opinion-based books.

So, the best-case scenario is that Lomborg’s h-index is no more than 4. Given his appointment to Level D (Associate Professor) at a world-class university, the suggestion that he earned it on academic merit is not only laughable, it’s completely fraudulent. There is no way that his academic credentials had anything to do with the appointment"

However, it has everything to do with a shifty govt intent on pleasing its masters by seeking to install a controversial contrarian at a world class university.

"...Not for reputational reasons as you so dishonestly claimed."

Lol! - as if, upon the outcry, that wouldn't have been a factor.

Paul,

As you are obviously now in your dotage, I will forgive your memory lapses due to your shrivelled pre cortex, which clearly struggles with the concept of multiple degrees.

Yes as discussed before, I have a honours degree in electrical engineering with post graduate qualifications in power systems and protection. I also have a bachelor degree in economics and statistical analysis (quantitative methods), and finally to top it, an MBA.

I read your link and more than a dozen similar links to articles written about Dr Ryota Kanai's study. Having a healthy skepticism as to journalists' predilection for sensationalism, I read the actual report on the study by Dr Ryota Kanai, and not surprisingly found that Dr Ryota Kanai's conclusions differ vastly from the articles cited as gospel in this thread.