Climate Lawsuit Brewing?

Mark Jacobson at TED Talks. YouTube screencap.

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

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.

Read more at National Review

Trackback from your site.

Comments (6)

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    Mark Jacobson KA-CHING,KA CHING,KA CHING thinking $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and afarid having his alowance cut off

    Reply

  • Avatar

    G

    |

    Again proving that if you’re a leftist you don’t have to be correct – you only have to be pissed off to justify a law suit. Desperation reigns in socialist camps as MMGCC is exposed for the fraud it is.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    The Scientific Method has no mention of Science being settled by Judges. Once again, no one will remember Mark’s “science”, they will however remember his temperature tantrum when it was invalidated by others following the Scientific Method… LOL…

    Reply

    • Avatar

      rakooi

      |

      The only people I ever hear use the term “settled science” is folks who do not know their Arses from holes in the ground.
      The Scientific Method,
      constantly challenged by PEER REVIEWS
      (red team blue team method of critique & evaluations)

      FOLLOW the generation of Science Knowledge.
      1799 ” ‘Climate Change’ was Postulated in 1799, Alexander von Humboldt.”   multiple historical records
      .
      1811 “Climate Changed Scientifically tied to Global Warming & Human Activity by physicist & astronomer Simeon Denis Poisson, 1811….”        multiple historical records
      He lectured, extensively, on this eventual threat by 1827 !
      .
      1847 “George Perkins Marsh (1801-1882) author of the 1847 lecture that predicted > “human-induced climate change.” <
      multiple historical records
      .
      Scientists WERE ALREADY LECTURING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING and the resulting Climate Changes, in 1847 !
      .
      “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide & other gases was experimentally demonstrated & PROVED in the mid-19th century.”
      ..( these same fundamental experiments are Challenged & REPEATED Every year, in nearly every University around the world !
      …they have been put up for study, & critique !
      …for decades,no appreciable critique of the fundamental science of Global Warming
      …not in climatology,
      not in physics,
      not Earth Science,
      not physical science,
      not in Meteorology, etc.)
      .
      “….The line of Solid empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows
      .
      We’re raising CO2 levels and H2O & other gasses.
      We dump 135 times more CO2 into the atmosphere than ALL of the Volcanoes Combined.
      .
      (here is how we have determined it)
      .
      Human carbon dioxide emissions & other gasses are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).
      .
      Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites.
      For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000+ years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million.
      .
      Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by OVER 110 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.
      .
      ( Instead of 225-285PPM, as it has been 1,000’s & 1,000’s of years, today we are NOW   ‘OVER’   411PPM ! )
      .
      Atmospheric CO2 levels and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC).
      While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million,
      here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes.
      CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.
      ….
      ( Humans are NOW emitting more than 135 TIMES as much CO2 as ALL of the volcanoes on EARTH, each & every year, COMBINED ! )
      .
      (The Unique Isotopic Signature proves that this CO2 INCREASE is from Human Activities & the Burning of Fossil Fuels)
      .
      CO2 traps heat
      .
      According to radiative physics & decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space.

      In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra.
      In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations.
      Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing I.R. energy radiation over the 26 year period .
      .
      GOOGLE: IRIS Satellite
      GOOGLE: Japanese Satellite IMG
      Google this SOURCE: (Harries 2001).
      these research studies have been peer reviewed
      (red team blue team),
      published in respected Science Journals & the science has been repeatedly been Replicated.
      .
      What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation IN the wavelength bands OF greenhouse gases ((CO2 & methane (CH4) absorb energy))
      .
      The reductions in outgoing radiation was consistent with Global Warming theoretical expectations.

      ** Thus these research studies & papers  found “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect” and Global Warming.

      (  If Infra Red HEAT Energy, does not escape, it is retained in our Earth System as rising temperatures, warming seas,melting Ice. )

      These results has been confirmed by subsequent Research papers using data from later satellites.
      .
      Google this SOURCE: (Griggs 2004)
      Google this SOURCE: ( Chen 2007 )

      THIS research has been Peer Reviewed (red team blue team)
      widely published and replicated repeatedly.
      .
      Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace greenhouse gases.   ‘Brightness temperature’ indicates equivalent blackbody temperature
      .
      Google this SOURCE: (Harries 2001).
      Peer reviewed (red team blue team), published and replicated.
      .
      When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
      .
      Much of it makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
      .
      Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
      .
      Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth.
      .
      Google this SOURCE: (Wang 2009)
      .
      A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
      .
      Google this SOURCE: (Philipona 2004)
      Peer reviewed (red team blue team) published and replicated.
      .
      Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases.
      .
      Google this SOURCE: (Evans 2006)
      Peer reviewed (red team blue team) published and replicated.
      .
      The results lead the authors to conclude that “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
      .
      Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface.
      Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases.
      .
      Google this SOURCE: (Evans 2006)
      Peer Reviewed (red team blue team),widely published, & replicated.
      .
      The planet IS accumulating heat
      .
      When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space, our climate accumulates heat. The planet’s total heat build up can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice.
      .
      Google this SOURCE: (Murphy 2009)
      Peer reviewed (red team blue team) widely published, & replicated.
      .
      Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep.
      Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record and heat capacity of the troposphere.
      Land and ice heat content(eg-the energy required to melt ice)were also included.
      .
      Total Earth Heat Content from 1950.
      .
      Google this SOURCE: (Murphy 2009)
      .
      SOURCE: (Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.)
      PEER REVIEWED (red team blue team) widely published
      and replicated.
      .
      From 1970 to 2003,
      the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans.
      .
      Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans.
      .
      What about after 2003?
      A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep .
      .
      Google this SOURCE: (von Schuckmann 2009)
      PEER reviewed (red team blue team) widely published and replicated.
      .
      Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2, consistent with other determinations of the planet’s energy imbalance.
      .
      Google this SOURCE: (Hansen 2005)
      Google this SOURCE: (Trenberth 2009).
      Peer Reviewed (red team blue team) widely published and replicated

      The planet continues to accumulate heat.

      So we see a direct line of evidence that we’re causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels.
      The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellites and many surface measurements.
      The planet’s energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the planet’s total heat content and ocean heat measurements….”

      https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-016-1732-y

      https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

      CONCERNED Stated:
      What happened in the distant past,
      4 1/2 billion years ago,
      65 million years ago, or even
      120,000 or
      20,000 years ago, has absolutely nothing to do with what is happening now.
      .
      Different mechanisms are involved.
      .
      Scientists told you about past climate changes.
      They are telling you that now it is different.
      Pay attention.
      .
      This Holocene interglacial Warming, thermal maximum, occurred 7,000-7500 years ago.
      After this maximum, there have been roughly 7000-7500 years of natural cooling,
      as we started the slow descent into the next ice age / glaciation !
      .
      ( much of the last 1000 years is called the LITTLE ICE AGE )
      ( “ICE AGE” because it continued thousands of years of cooling on earth )
      (“LITTLE” because it ended abruptly in 1750-1850 )
      .
      What Caused
      a sudden and complete reversal of the Earth’s Most Powerful natural cooling trend,
      which has occurred in the last 250 years.
      THERE IS NO natural explanation,
      NO NATURAL CYCLE which explains this complete / sudden reversal, FROM millenia of Falling Temperatures to Rapid RISING Temperatures.
      .
      The CO2 enhanced greenhouse effect does explain it.

      http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

      >

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Steve

        |

        And yet Michalel Manns infamous hockey stick graph seems to omit any data showing the MWP around 1200-1400 AD, which clearly shows high temps in europe……now that would be a natural cycle….

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    How quickly everyone forgot Global Cooling at the New Ice Age we were suppost to be happening back in the 1970’s that same liberal rag TIME it was on their front cover just as much as the Global Warming in the 1990s

    Reply

Leave a comment