• 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 Stupid Lawsuit

Jack Hays

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
Following in the dubious footsteps of Michael Mann, Stanford professor Mark Jacobson has filed a lawsuit against other scientists who disagreed with him, and, btw, refuted his thesis.

Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M

Posted on November 1, 2017 | 166 comments
by Judith Curry
Mannian litigation gone wild. — Steve McIntyre
Continue reading →

Details given by Michael Schellenberger in Environmental Progress:
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) [link to published paper] 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.


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.”
Environmental Progress weighed in on this controversy when Clack et al. published their article. In our view, it’s clear that Jacobson made a false assumption about the possibility of expanding U.S. hydroelectricity.
Jacobson’s assumption speaks to the essential fallacy of the 100 percent renewables proposal. . . .



 
Jack Hays said:
Following in the dubious footsteps of Michael Mann, Stanford professor Mark Jacobson has filed a lawsuit against other scientists who disagreed with him, and, btw, refuted his thesis.

Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M

[FONT=&]Posted on November 1, 2017 | 166 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
Mannian litigation gone wild. — Steve McIntyre
Continue reading →

Details given by Michael Schellenberger in Environmental Progress:
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) [link to published paper] 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.


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.”
Environmental Progress weighed in on this controversy when Clack et al. published their article. In our view, it’s clear that Jacobson made a false assumption about the possibility of expanding U.S. hydroelectricity.
Jacobson’s assumption speaks to the essential fallacy of the 100 percent renewables proposal. . . .



Click to expand...

You must understand how horribly unpc it is to criticise someone that doesn't have his safe space available. It's inhuman!
 
If the story is accurate then it sounds like he is in the wrong line of work.
 
It's a lot mad to try to use a law suit to do this.

If he (Stanford prof) is wrong then he will look extremely stupid in court.

If the others are wrong then being wrong is not illegal or anything.

You can only sue if the other guy is wrong and knows it.
 
Jack Hays said:
Following in the dubious footsteps of Michael Mann, Stanford professor Mark Jacobson has filed a lawsuit against other scientists who disagreed with him, and, btw, refuted his thesis.

Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M

[FONT=&]Posted on November 1, 2017 | 166 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
Mannian litigation gone wild. — Steve McIntyre
Continue reading →

Details given by Michael Schellenberger in Environmental Progress:
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) [link to published paper] 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.


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.”
Environmental Progress weighed in on this controversy when Clack et al. published their article. In our view, it’s clear that Jacobson made a false assumption about the possibility of expanding U.S. hydroelectricity.
Jacobson’s assumption speaks to the essential fallacy of the 100 percent renewables proposal. . . .



Click to expand...

Anybody with half a brain knew this claim was false.
 
joG said:
You must understand how horribly unpc it is to criticise someone that doesn't have his safe space available. It's inhuman!
Click to expand...

Criticism exposes the snowflakes. They have a meltdown.
 
Jack Hays said:
Following in the dubious footsteps of Michael Mann, Stanford professor Mark Jacobson has filed a lawsuit against other scientists who disagreed with him, and, btw, refuted his thesis.

Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M

Posted on November 1, 2017 | 166 comments
by Judith Curry
Mannian litigation gone wild. — Steve McIntyre
Continue reading →

Details given by Michael Schellenberger in Environmental Progress:
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) [link to published paper] 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.


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.”
Environmental Progress weighed in on this controversy when Clack et al. published their article. In our view, it’s clear that Jacobson made a false assumption about the possibility of expanding U.S. hydroelectricity.
Jacobson’s assumption speaks to the essential fallacy of the 100 percent renewables proposal. . . .



Click to expand...

Sounds idiotic.

Also sounds nothing to do with Mann or Steyn. Steyn had blatantly slandered Mann by comparing him to a child molester- no science was involved on Steyns part.
 
[h=2]Lawyers call libel suit against journal and critic “lawless” but “well written”[/h][FONT=&quot]with 6 comments[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
JACOBSON_Mark%202%20CroppedBest.jpeg
Mark Jacobson
​
A $10 million defamation suit filed by a Stanford University professor against a critic and a journal may be an assault on free speech, according to one lawyer, but at least it’s “well written.”
Kenneth White, a lawyer at Southern California firm Brown White & Osborn who frequently blogs about legal issues related to free speech at Popehat, told us:
It’s not incompetently drafted, but it’s clearly vexatious and intended to silence dissent about an alleged scientist’s peer-reviewed article.
​
Scientists have publicly bemoaned the suit’s existence, as reported by several outlets, including Mashable and Nature. Mark Jacobson, an engineering professor at Stanford, has alleged that he was defamed in a June article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), which was critical of a 2015 paper co-authored by Jacobson in the same journal. In a complaint filed Sept. 29 in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Jacobson accused the journal’s publisher, the National Academy of Sciences, and the paper’s first author, Christopher Clack, an executive at a renewable energy analysis firm, of libel.
White told us that there are several pitfalls that could trip up the lawsuit, including a DC law that allows defendants an early opportunity to ask the court to dismiss cases muzzling free speech and recover attorneys’ fees. But another attorney said the complaint should at least clear the lowest hurdle in the way of getting to trial. Read the rest of this entry »
[/FONT]
 
[h=2]PNAS asks D.C. court to dismiss $10 million defamation lawsuit[/h][FONT=&quot]without comments[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]WASHINGTON, DC — Lawyers for the National Academy of Sciences have asked a District of Columbia court to dismiss a $10 million defamation suit brought by a Stanford University professor.
Mark Jacobson, an engineering professor at Stanford who has published research about the future of renewable energy, alleged he was defamed in a June 2017 article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In September 2017, Jacobson sued both NAS and the first author of the article for libel in D.C. Superior Court. He also sued NAS for breach of contract.
In response, the co-defendants have each asked the court to dismiss the case under a D.C. law designed to curb so-called “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (SLAPP). Anti-SLAPP laws, which D.C. and 28 states have enacted, generally offer defendants a way to counter what they consider burdensome lawsuits that may have the effect of chilling speech on important issues. In a memo filed Nov. 27, 2017, in support of its motion, NAS claimed that Jacobson filed the suit: Read the rest of this entry »
[/FONT]
 
It's over.

[h=1]Citing Mann’s legal case against Steyn, Jacobsen throws in the towel on defamation case[/h]Via the Volokh Conspiracy: Jacobson Dismisses Defamation Lawsuit Against Other Scientists After an initial hearing, Stanford’s Mark Jacobson thinks better of pursuing a scientific disagreement in court. Jonathan H. Adler Jonathan H. Adler Last fall, Stanford professor Mark Z. Jacobson sued several researchers and the National Academy of Sciences over the publication of a paper critical of…
 
[h=2]Prof who just dropped $10M suit against PNAS: “I was expecting them to settle”[/h][FONT=&quot]Mark JacobsonYesterday, Mark Jacobson, a researcher at Stanford University who studies the future of renewable energy, announced he would drop a $10 million defamation suitover a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was critical of his work. As we reported, the announcement came just two days after the District of Columbia Superior Court heard oral arguments about the case because the defendants — the National Academy of Sciences and Christopher Clack, who runs a data analysis company called Vibrant Clean Energy — had asked the court to dismiss the case.
When the suit became public knowledge in November 2017, Jacobson’s decision drew criticism from both scientists and lawyers. We talked with him today about how he feels now that it’s over. Continue reading Prof who just dropped $10M suit against PNAS: “I was expecting them to settle”
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Prof who just dropped $10M suit against PNAS: “I was expecting them to settle”[/h][FONT="][URL="http://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/JACOBSON_Mark-2-CroppedBest.jpeg"]
JACOBSON_Mark-2-CroppedBest.jpeg
[/URL]Mark JacobsonYesterday, Mark Jacobson, a researcher at Stanford University who studies the future of renewable energy, announced he would drop a $10 million defamation suitover a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was critical of his work. As we reported, the announcement came just two days after the District of Columbia Superior Court heard oral arguments about the case because the defendants — the National Academy of Sciences and Christopher Clack, who runs a data analysis company called Vibrant Clean Energy — had asked the court to dismiss the case.
When the suit became public knowledge in November 2017, Jacobson’s decision drew criticism from both scientists and lawyers. We talked with him today about how he feels now that it’s over. Continue reading Prof who just dropped $10M suit against PNAS: “I was expecting them to settle”
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

The issue in the case was, what was our assumption? Clack knew what our assumption was, and then lied about it.
Click to expand...

They should sue for that. That would be very interesting. He has made a clear defanitory statement, liablous, clear and easy to show that he is wrong etc. Go for it.
 
It appears that Mark Jacobsen never had a case since the rebutting paper was honestly written, as shown here:

Excerpt from the paper,

Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar

Significance

Previous analyses have found that the most feasible route to a low-carbon energy future is one that adopts a diverse portfolio of technologies. In contrast, Jacobson et al. (2015) consider whether the future primary energy sources for the United States could be narrowed to almost exclusively wind, solar, and hydroelectric power and suggest that this can be done at “low-cost” in a way that supplies all power with a probability of loss of load “that exceeds electric-utility-industry standards for reliability”. We find that their analysis involves errors, inappropriate methods, and implausible assumptions. Their study does not provide credible evidence for rejecting the conclusions of previous analyses that point to the benefits of considering a broad portfolio of energy system options. A policy prescription that overpromises on the benefits of relying on a narrower portfolio of technologies options could be counterproductive, seriously impeding the move to a cost effective decarbonized energy system.

Abstract

A number of analyses, meta-analyses, and assessments, including those performed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the International Energy Agency, have concluded that deployment of a diverse portfolio of clean energy technologies makes a transition to a low-carbon-emission energy system both more feasible and less costly than other pathways. In contrast, Jacobson et al. [Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA, Cameron MA, Frew BA (2015) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(49):15060–15065] argue that it is feasible to provide “low-cost solutions to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of WWS [wind, water and solar power] across all energy sectors in the continental United States between 2050 and 2055”, with only electricity and hydrogen as energy carriers. In this paper, we evaluate that study and find significant shortcomings in the analysis. In particular, we point out that this work used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions. Policy makers should treat with caution any visions of a rapid, reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.

LINK

He dropped the case because he realized it would take years and gobs of money, but the moron should have realized he never had a winnable case from the start anyway since he was never libeled at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom