• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Lawsuit over Renewable Energy Claims?

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There may be legal trouble brewing over renewable energy claims. A renewable advocate may take his critics to court for exposing his fake math.

Renewable energy
Another Climate Lawsuit Brewing?

They are eating their own. Date: 18/07/17 Robert Bryce, National Review

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.”. . . .
 
There may be legal trouble brewing over renewable energy claims. A renewable advocate may take his critics to court for exposing his fake math.

Renewable energy
Another Climate Lawsuit Brewing?

They are eating their own. Date: 18/07/17 Robert Bryce, National Review

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.”. . . .

The greenie is a wacko who wants to censure debate on renewable energy
 
Guess the courts will decide. Seems a little on the aggressive side, but if he can prove that the Clark paper was libelous somehow, then more power to him. But he'd better be sure, as clearly if he's wrong, this will be elevated to "smoking gun" status for climate change deniers to turn into a holy relic of smugness, creating a ton of extra work in the credibility department for anyone else trying to get work done on this issue. He probably should have simply debated the counter point of the Clark paper, if he was so sure of his own...
 
Jacobson made all sorts of assumptions in his findings.
it assumes that all the cars on the road become electric, and that homes and industry convert to fully electrified heating and cooling systems.
I think our electrical grid would require a 3 fold expansion, just to handle 100% electric passenger vehicles.
 
Guess the courts will decide. Seems a little on the aggressive side, but if he can prove that the Clark paper was libelous somehow, then more power to him. But he'd better be sure, as clearly if he's wrong, this will be elevated to "smoking gun" status for climate change deniers to turn into a holy relic of smugness, creating a ton of extra work in the credibility department for anyone else trying to get work done on this issue. He probably should have simply debated the counter point of the Clark paper, if he was so sure of his own...

Unlikely he can prevail in court since Clack et al has twenty co-authors and was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 
Jacobson made all sorts of assumptions in his findings.

I think our electrical grid would require a 3 fold expansion, just to handle 100% electric passenger vehicles.

We better get started right away
 
[h=3]100% Renewables - A Few Remarks about the Jacobson/Clack ...[/h]www.resilience.org/.../100-renewables-a-few-remarks-about-the-jacobsonclack-contro...



Jun 27, 2017 - Following the publication of the Clack et al. paper, a fierce controversy erupted between the two teams of researchers and their respective ...
 
Unlikely he can prevail in court since Clack et al has twenty co-authors and was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Wow....that almost sounds like an appeal to authority
 
[h=3]The Appalling Delusion of 100 Percent Renewables ... - National Review[/h]www.nationalreview.com/.../100-percent-renewable-energy-dream-delusional-nas-say...



Jun 24, 2017 - The idea that the U.S. economy can be run solely with renewable energy — a ... Clack et al. correct the record by pointing out that Jacobson's ...




[h=3]Dear scientists: Stop bickering about a 100% renewable power grid ...[/h]https://thinkprogress.org/a-carbon-free-grid-is-unstoppable-so-why-did-a-nasty-debat...



Jun 20, 2017 - The U.S. power grid can, must, and will be largely renewable by 2055. ... Jacobson and his team respond in the same journal, “Clack et al.



 
Another anti-renewable-energy entry by Jack. How many times have I said that? How many have you posted, Jack? Are you obsessed?
 
Are you opposed to debate and free speech?
I think the problem that Jacobson had was he excluded nuclear, and downplayed the need for storage.
The volume of renewable energy is not the issue, but placing that energy when and where it is needed.
Any off grid alternate energy system needs both storage and backup for sustained operation.
The make entire sections of the grid depend only on renewable s, will require the same things, just on a massive scale.
 
Back
Top Bottom