I am rendered speechless, so I let John Stuart Mill speak for me: “The particular evil of silencing of an expression of an opinion.” Steve
UGLY: Disputing peer review by lawsuit
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.