They are eating their own~ctm
- Date: 18/07/17
- Robert Bryce, National Review
Mark Jacobson, the Stanford professor who claims the U.S. can run solely on renewables, tells his critics he’s hired an attorney.
Mark Jacobson, the Stanford engineering professor who became the darling of the green Left by repeatedly claiming the U.S. economy can run solely on renewable energy, has threatened to take legal action against the authors of an article that demolished his claims last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The paper — whose lead author is Chris Clack, a mathematician who has worked at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Colorado and now has an energy consulting firm — received coverage in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other outlets, including a piece from yours truly in this space. Clack’s paper went through rigorous vetting and numerous delays that lasted more than a year. Rather than accept any of the criticisms Clack and his nearly two dozen co-authors made, Jacobson responded with tirades on Twitter, EcoWatch, and elsewhere. He claimed that his work doesn’t contain a single error, that all of his critics are whores for hydrocarbons, and that, well, dammit, he’s right. Never mind that Jacobson overstated the amount of available hydropower in the U.S. by roughly a factor of ten and claimed that in just three decades or so, we won’t need any gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel because we will all be flying to Vegas in hydrogen-powered 737s.
But Jacobson has also made it clear that he’s considering litigation. After hearing rumors about his legal threats, I obtained redacted copies of two e-mails Jacobson sent to Clack and his co-authors last month. In one e-mail, sent June 27 at 6:11 p.m., Jacobson warned, “just to keep you informed, I have hired an attorney to address the falsification of claims about our work in the Clack article.” About an hour later, Jacobson sent another e-mail to them. It concluded with Jacobson saying, “Yes, and I have hired an attorney.”
No legal complaints have been filed yet. But by intimating legal action, Jacobson joins company with another thin-skinned climate catastrophist and hero of the green Left: Michael Mann. As readers may know, Mann, a professor at Penn State University — who, by the way, has a star turn in Leonardo DiCaprio’s new climate-disaster pic, Before the Flood — sued National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Rand Simberg, and Mark Steyn for defamation in 2012. The suit demanded a jury trial, and the litigation is still pending. (For Steyn’s paint-blistering take on Mann and climate McCarthyism, read his 2015 Senate testimony.)
Mann’s litigation and Jacobson’s implied threat to sue show how influential, well-funded climate scientist-activists are resorting to bully tactics to try to intimidate their intellectual antagonists. Rather than engage in civil, fact-based debate about climate change and climate policy, Mann and his fellow travelers have engaged in public smear campaigns against other scientists. [….-
Of course, Jacobson’s veiled threat to sue his critics may be just that. But for Clack, even the threat of litigation shows how public discourse has deteriorated. “I don’t see how he thinks any of this is helpful,” Clack told me. “It diminishes all of science the way he has behaved. It’s beyond the pale in my opinion.”
After talking to Clack, I e-mailed Jacobson asking if he is, in fact, planning litigation. He replied: “I have no comment except to say that any email you have obtained from a third party that has my words on it is copyrighted, and your printing any email of mine would be done without my permission and would be considered a copyright infringement.”
Full post
HT/The GWPF
I thought the courts refused to involve themselves in scientific disputes. The Mann episode is different because receiving or not receiving an award isn’t a scientific dispute.
Courts should deal with legal stuff, not with scientific stuff. A “scientific” attitude “You dare to say I am not right? See you in court” has so far been limited climate and environmental so-called sciences. Fortunately. Even Germany under NSDAP in 1930s did not sink so low.
Extract under title ‘scientific background’ at https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/
Sounds more like entertainment than science. Although it extends my lifespan right now, my culture says no thank you Mark. Feel free to sue the ancestors concerned.
Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost gridpower with 100% wind, water, and solar Christopher T. M. Clack, … PDF
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722.full.pdf
Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar Christopher T. M. Clack, … PDF + SI
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722.full.pdf?with-ds=yes
The chap is from Stanford University so I guess that he is well versed with the 2013 study conducted by Stanford University.
This study calculated that global photovoltaic industry now requires more electricity to make silicon wafers and solar troughs than it actually produces in return. Since 2000 the industry consumed 75 per cent more energy than it put onto the grid and all during its manufacturing and installation process.
No doubt the position with wind is broadly similar, unless wind is piggy backed upon already existing fossil fuel or nuclear generation that is required required for base load and back up. Note how Germany has come up against the buffer and has since about 2005 been unable to significantly reduce its CO2 emissions, and these increased last year (and I think also in 2015).
It should be clear to anyone that renewables are a failure (and don’t forget that many greens do not classify hydro as a renewable).
Germany has failed to reduce its transport and heating CO2 (transport Co2 has gone up last year) and has been impacted by the 2011 reactor switch off
It isn’t renewable electricity which is the problem…
Germany got 35% of electricity from renewables in the first half of this year (with an incredibly stable grid).
all greens classify hydro as renewable -some have other concerns about its environmental impact.
One thing about Griff, no matter how many times a lie is refuted, he can be counted on to keep repeating it.
Yep. It’s working a treat. But after the subsidies expire, will the mandates appear?
They have ways and means.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/19/delingpole-renewmaggedon-solar-wind-industries-dying-as-subsidies-dry-up/
But, Mark, you have never offered any evidence contrary to what I have written. Not one link.
Well Tim, Germany saw its first non-subsidy wind farm this year.
http://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/04/13/germany-accepts-first-subsidy-free-offshore-wind-auction-bid/
Offshore wind auctions will continue to be held regularly… I don’t think its going to be the only one.
and there’s this:
“British solar developer confirms that its proposed 40 MW solar farm in Hampshire, southern England, will be commissioned by early 2018 and built without the need for any form of subsidy or support from government”
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2017/07/19/hive-energys-subsidy-free-40-mw-uk-solar-plant-gets-approval/
So, Griff, you’re denying again the cost of electricity in Germany? How original.
Griff,
The ‘no subsidy’ deal was done with a guarantee to take 100% of the power at an elevated price. Other generators are not given such a guarantee. It was exactly this ‘deal’ that is bankrupting Ontario right now. They are paying a premium for the power, and dumping AT A FEE into the US grid.
Germany is doing exactly the same thing. They demand that the ‘no subsidy’ wind power be purchased at retail price and when there is an excess it is dumped into the Central European Grid. It is of course dumped below cost. Even below the cost from coal fired plants. That, dear Griff, is a subsidy.
The fact that the wind turbines, which are offshore so they cost a frigging fortune, are not visibly subsidised (we should first see the capital write off formula permitted before agreeing) does not mean there isn’t some jiggery-pokery in the background that guarantees profits where there should be none.
“… any email you have obtained from a third party that has my words on it is copyrighted, and your printing any email of mine would be done without my permission and would be considered a copyright infringement.”
That’s an idea that Hillary hasn’t thought of yet!
The power of Climate Delusion™ is that it makes fools and liars out of otherwise intelligent people. But these foolish liars then double-down on Stupid by claiming that expensive, unreliable, grid-killing, land-hogging, and environmentally destructive “renewables” aka “green” energy will “solve” a non-existent problem. Incredible.
I wonder if Mark Jacobson does has he claims he will , if he will also spend years ducking , diving and doing everything he can to avoid actual going to court in the way Mann has ?
“……Never mind that Jacobson overstated the amount of available hydropower in the U.S. by roughly a factor of ten ………..”
If anybody thinks that a hydropower generating facility can be built today anywhere in the USA, they have their heads way up their anal orifices.
It is totally IMPOSSIBLE to get any hydro facility built in the USA today. The enviro wackos and their good pals in the (state and Federal) EPA will make sure it never happens.
The INTENTIONAL goal of all the enviro wackos is that the production of energy, aside from wind and solar and growing “crops” just to burn them for fuel (incredible, is it not !! ) comes to a halt and also that existing energy production facilities are either rendered unprofitable.
And they sure have been successful.
‘small hydro’ is widespread in the UK… does not (usually) require dams, impede water flow or fish access…
several designs…
OK, we’re talking supplying a farm, large household, not a whole state, but it is quyite viable.
The Queen has a hydro generator!
Is that legal/used/useful in the USA?
Viable but utterly insignificant. And if it “doesn’t impede water flow” it can’t be controlled and is almost as useless as wind (not quite, since streamflow is more stable than wind).
“The Queen has a hydro generator’. Sure. It cost a fortune. It is just not practical as a substitute for mains electricity – but probably OK on small scale for charging a battery, even though expensive.
In a country where enviro’s are suing to have existing dams torn down, the idea that we could increase hydro power by a factor of 10 (even assuming enough suitable sites existed) is ludicrous.
An engineering proposal to produce enough power to run Central California on hydro only: Build a dam 250 feet tall across Golden Gate. Create a great lake in Central Valley. Expel the population. That would generate a lot of hydro power, while reducing the power consumption. A beneficial side effect: Stanford would be submerged.
Lawsuit vs. Submachine gun: I see Jacobson
http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/b/b7/Kah%26k.jpeg/600px-Kah%26k.jpeg
Apparently Clack has never heard of the “fair use” exemption to copyright.
That exemption should be repealed immediately.
But, seriously, this threatened lawsuit illustrates a need to reform a legal system, where Stella can sue McDonald’s because she bought a cup of hot coffee, and win a million. We should consider a change in a direction of “a losing plaintiff pays defendant’s legal expenses”. This should also resolve many problems in the healthcare.
“… where Stella can sue McDonald’s because she bought a cup of hot coffee…”
Egregious oversimplification there, Georgie.
“That exemption should be repealed immediately.”
Why? To protect the holder from criticism, most likely.
Link to Jacobson v Clack dueling papers, with July 2017 response
https://www.dropbox.com/s/n8oxg2xykc8j3dx/ReplyResponse.pdf?dl=0
I wonder if it could be so simple that Jacobson simply forgot to put an upper limit on the instantaneous production capacity for hydropower, so his beautiful model just ramped it up to whatever was needed to balance sun and wind.
Of course he would never admit such an egregious error. His response on this crucial point is very weak, suggesting that he really doesn’t have any good excuse.
I wonder how can anyone, let alone a prof. of engineering, deny DOE/EIA numbers for how much renewables, particularly hydro, contribute. See the DOE numbers and charts in:
https://www.masterresource.org/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-sources-output-matter/
Where did this quack of an engineer receive his education ??? I want to ensure my kids DONT go there !!!
For an analysis of Jacobsen’s extreme claims from a Canadian viewpoint, see
https://achemistinlangley.wordpress.com/2016/04/15/debunking-the-leap-manifesto-100-renewables-by-2050-demand/?wref=tp
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Yeah, wake me up when he’s paid the attorney’s retainer and the process server has arrived.
“I have no comment except to say that any email you have obtained from a third party that has my words on it is copyrighted, and your printing any email of mine would be done without my permission and would be considered a copyright infringement.”
So, every word he ever wrote in an e-mail is ‘copyrighted’.
Right.
Joel,
Every word, and derivatives thereof! 🙂
We not only have these idiots destroying our power infra structure leaving us with totally unaffordable electricity prices but they are also demolishing our food producing capacity, their latest hoax Vertical Farming. Besides to clueless investors a huge number of people are going to suffer for this. Just google Vertical farming is not going to save the planet and watch the video.
Jacobson appears as clueless about copyright law as he is about science. Oh well, at least he’s consistent.