Wow, just wow. Some scientists and their egos. Sheesh.
Michael Shellenberger writes:
Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson has filed a lawsuit, demanding $10 million in damages, against the peer-reviewed scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and a group of eminent scientists (Clack et al.) for their study showing that Jacobson made improper assumptions in order to claim that he had demonstrated U.S. energy could be provided exclusively by renewable energy, primarily wind, water, and solar.
A copy of Jacobson’s complaint and submitted exhibits can be found here and here.
Jacobson’s lawsuit is an appalling attack on free speech and scientific inquiry and we urge the courts to reject it as grossly unethical and without legal merit.
…
What Jacobson has done is unprecedented. Scientific disagreements must be decided not in court but rather through the scientific process. We urge Stanford University, Stanford Alumni, and everyone who loves science and free speech to denounce this lawsuit.
The lawsuit rests on the claim that Clack et al. defamed Jacobson by calling his assumption that hydroelectricity could be significantly expanded a “modeling error.”
…
One of the most environmentally devastating ways of producing electricity is with hydroelectric dams. While poor nations have a right to make cheap power from hydroelectricity, their environmental impact is enormous.
Full story here
Expanding hydro? Sure….the enviros will embrace that one in the pursuit of 100% renewable energy. yeah, that’s the ticket. Let’s start with the Auburn dam in California as a test case.
This is probably the most idiotic lawsuit I’ve ever seen in science, Mann’s egotistical uproars against Tim Ball and Mark Steyn included.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As a math and computational modeler from the world of biology, I have created my share of models that turned out to have errors that led me to the wrong conclusion. Usually this was pointed out enthusiastically by my colleague competitors in the field All models by definition are approximations that have errors and sometimes you cannot readily discern how large. Most researchers defend and refute their models in later publications, hopefully successfully. This is the best approach if you are sure you are right.
The fact that a lawsuit is being submitted instead of a paper with a powerful counterargument is, to me, evidence that there is no good counterargument. Perhaps Jacobson is being forced into this lawsuit by Jay Precourt, a multimillionnaire who reportedly has funded Jacobson’s operation with millions of dolars. A lawsuit sounds like something a lay person would do rather than a scientific researcher. Here is an article on conflict-of-interest regarding Jacobson’s funding by Precourt:
https://atomicinsights.com/following-the-money-whos-funding-stanfords-natural-gas-initative/
He submitted rebuttals, one for one — PNAS ignored them — hence the lawsuit.
You really are a glutton for punishment, eh karl?
@ur momisugly opus
Scroll up to Vik’s post — he clarifies exactly what I was saying.
Process was ignored and not followed.
But I thought the science was settled ? Or was that just until people discovered those awesome “climate ”
estimating models used to justify the alarmist ,tax payer funded global warming worry industry were actually full of BS ?
Why hasn’t anyone produced an accurate climate model of the driving force of climate change for billions of years , those of natural variables , which make human generated CO2 almost invisible in order of magnitude . How could any credible science organization stand on a soap box pretending to understand the interrelationship of natural occurring climate variables , including that of natural occurring Co2 , and then claim a trace gas is driving the climate in some disastrous direction . Only failed politicians and poor actors could pull that off .