As Robert Tracinski points out, this is not how science works. It’s almost like Warmists do not want their studies and such reviewed for accuracy because they have ulterior motives
(The Federalist) If we have such an overwhelming scientific “consensus†about the supposed threat of catastrophic man-made global warming—and about the political and economic solutions to it—then why do advocates have to sue scientists to prevent them from questioning it? That’s the question raised by a $10 million lawsuit lawsuit filed by Stanford engineering professor Mark Z. Jacobson accusing other scientists of defamation for critiquing his scientific work in favor of “renewal energy.â€
That’s not how science works. That’s not how any of this is supposed to work.
Jacobson made a name for himself and became something of a media celebrity for publishing a study in 2015 that claimed the United States could provide 100 percent of its energy needs from wind, solar, and hydroelectric power by 2050—and at a lower cost than with fossil fuels. (snip)
Earlier this year, a group of 21 experts led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Christopher Clack definitively debunked Jacobson’s claims in a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The paper’s abstract sums up the case: “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.â€
Jacobson intentionally excluded nuclear energy in his study, which is one of the reason he got pushback. So, yeah, he’s gone on to sue for defamation, as they asserted he made a modeling error.
Tacinski goes on to note that, for one thing, this is not defamation, and the point of the suit is to harass scientific rivals with frivolous lawsuits, in much the same way Michael “Robust Debate” Mann has sued those who took on his “hockey stick” silliness. This is all meant to discourage scientists and others from criticizing sloppy and/or complete mule fritters papers in the future, as, people might not want to spend the time and money defending against frivolous suits.
Yep.
The liberal mindset:
If Newton could only have sued Albert Einstein we would never had the threat of nuclear war…..
So The Administration that Couldn’t Shoot Straight released The Fourth National Climate Assessment which outlines the dire consequences associated with global climate change.
Mixed messages much?
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf
tRump will just say he’s just releasing an example of how corrupt and stupid the deep state scientists are.
That’s what one does when the “science is settledâ€-sue those who disagree. No different, really, than calling those with whom you can’t argue intellectually “racists†or “white supremacists.†Both are simply means to shut down debate.
Here’s what it really says, J. https://junkscience.com/2017/11/joe-bast-scientific-critique-of-usgcrps-2017-climate-science-special-report/
My group was pounding the table at all 4 IPCC conferences and all we got was a sentence or two in the IPCC final draft which indicated the effects of AGW brought on by Farming, Ranching, and most importantly the clear cutting/burning of the tropical rain forests by each individual country because of economic reasons. In most western cultures the clear cutting of forests are replanted. In most non western cultures the clear cutting is not replanted.
Brazil’s beaches are so filthy that you can no longer swim in the ocean in may tourist spots. The waters around India are being systemically destroyed by nitrogen run off of massive over use of fertilizers.
The reason these reports are off hand rejected is because they are not comprehensive. These so called scientists look at rising co2 levels and then the observable main culprit of co2 and 2 and 2 in their world is AGW. When in fact this only serves to take the eyes off the true culprit of our times.
I have an Al Gore prediction for this world. By 2100 the least of our worries is going to be a warmer planet and 8 feet of sea level rise because half the world will be dead because we can no longer feed them. Droughts will be massive across the globe because of the rainforests which actually contribute about 50 percent of the rain fall around the world annually will be dead and gone. Lands will be infertile and the massive run off of nitrogen will have killed 1/3rd of the worlds phytoplankton along with 30 percent of the oxygen regenerator in the Rain forests creating a toxic atmosphere.
And finally The ozone layer will be at least 2/3rds destroyed because of Nitrogen based fertilizer overuse which will create massive skin cancers and make it nearly impossible to work outdoors without heavy protection. Skin cancer will become the greatest epidemic the world will ever know and solar flare strikes will no longer be deflected by the earths atmosphere.
That’s real doom and gloom and it could be so easily prevented but it wont. Because it will take them till its too late to even start talking about it and then all the money will be spend on windmills and battery operated cars and fancy train lines that serve no purpose in a dead world.