Month: July 2020

Green Energy Prof Faces $600.000 Legal Fee Over Failed Attempt To Silence His Critics

Stanford prof ordered to pay legal fees after dropping $10 million defamation case against another scientist

Mark Jacobson

A Stanford professor who sued a critic and a scientific journal for $10 million — then dropped the suit — has been ordered to pay the defendants’ legal fees based on a statute “designed to provide for early dismissal of meritless lawsuits filed against people for the exercise of First Amendment rights.”

Mark Jacobson, who studies renewable energy at Stanford, sued in September 2017 in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for defamation over a 2017 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that critiqued a 2015 article he had written in the same journal. He sued PNAS and the first author of the paper, Christopher Clack, an executive at a firm that analyzes renewable energy.

At the time, Kenneth White, a lawyer at Southern California firm Brown White & Osborn who frequently blogs at Popehat about legal issues related to free speech, said of the suit:

It’s not incompetently drafted, but it’s clearly vexatious and intended to silence dissent about an alleged scientist’s peer-reviewed article.

In February 2018, following a hearing at which PNAS argued for the case to be dismissed, Jacobson dropped the suit, telling us that he “was expecting them to settle.” The defendants then filed, based on the anti-SLAPP — for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation” — statute in Washington, DC, for Jacobson to pay their legal fees.

In April of this year, as noted then by Forbes, District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Carroll Wingo, who has been presiding over the case, ruled that Jacobson would have to pay those fees. In that ruling, Wingo wrote that the Court 

finds that the three asserted “egregious errors” are statements reflecting scientific disagreements, which were appropriately explored and challenged in scientific publications; they simply do not attack Dr. Jacobson’s honesty or accuse him of misconduct.

Jacobson appealed that decision, but Wingo upheld it in a June 25 order.

Jacobson could be on the hook for more than $600,000, the total of what the plaintiffs have told the court were their legal costs — $535,900 for PNAS, and $75,000 for Clack.

Full story

see also GWPF coverage of Mark Jacobson’s lawsuit against his critics

The post Green Energy Prof Faces $600.000 Legal Fee Over Failed Attempt To Silence His Critics appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

https://ift.tt/2DpqyYR

July 10, 2020 at 01:12AM

WMO: World Could Hit 1.5C Global Warming by 2024

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

From the “we have one US Presidential cycle to save the world” department.

New climate predictions assess global temperatures in coming five years

8 July 2020

Geneva, 9 July 2020 – The annual mean global temperature is likely to be at least 1° Celsius above pre-industrial levels (1850-1900) in each of the coming five years (2020-2024) and there is a 20% chance that it will exceed 1.5°C in at least one year, according to new climate predictions issued by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

The Global Annual to Decadal Climate Update, led by the United Kingdom’s Met Office, provides a climate outlook for the next five years, updated annually. It harnesses the expertise of internationally acclaimed climate scientists and the best computer models from leading climate centres around the world to produce actionable information for decision-makers.

“This study shows – with a high level of scientific skill – the enormous challenge ahead in meeting the Paris Agreement on Climate Change target of keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius,” said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas.

Read more: https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/new-climate-predictions-assess-global-temperatures-coming-five-years

The executive summary of the study;

Global Annual to Decadal Climate Update

Target years: 2020 and 2020-2024

Executive Summary

This update presents a summary of annual to decadal predictions from WMO designated Global Producing Centres and non-designated contributing centres for the period 2020-2024. Latest predictions suggest that:

  • Annual global temperature is likely to be at least 1°C warmer than preindustrial levels (defined as the 1850-1900 average) in each of the coming 5 years and is very likely to be within the range 0.91 – 1.59°C
  • It is unlikely (~20% chance) that one of the next 5 years will be at least 1.5°C warmer than preindustrial levels, but the chance is increasing with time
  • It is likely (~70% chance) that one or more months during the next 5 years will be at least 1.5°C warmer than preindustrial levels
  • It is very unlikely (~3%) that the 5 year mean temperature for 2020-2024 will be 1.5°C warmer than preindustrial levels
  • In 2020, large land areas in the Northern Hemisphere are likely to be over 0.8°C warmer than the recent past (defined as the 1981-2010 average)
  • In 2020, the Arctic is likely to have warmed by more than twice as much as the global mean
  • The smallest temperature change is expected in the tropics and in the mid-latitudes of theSouthern Hemisphere
  • In 2020, many parts of South America, southern Africa and Australia are likely to be dryer than the recent past
  • Over 2020-2024, almost all regions, except parts of the southern oceans are likely to be warmer than the recent past
  • Over 2020-2024, high latitude regions and the Sahel are likely to be wetter than the recent past whereas northern and eastern parts of South America are likely to be dryer
  • Over 2020-2024, sea-level pressure anomalies suggest that the northern North Atlantic region could have stronger westerly winds leading to more storms in western Europe

Read more: https://hadleyserver.metoffice.gov.uk/wmolc/WMO_GADCU_2019.pdf

I guess it is time to ditch all those floating European offshore wind turbine plans, if storms in Western Europe are about to get worse.

But on a serious note, it would actually be great if every year for the next four years is 1.5C above pre-industrial; climate scientists would then have the difficult task of explaining why the end of the world was indistinguishable from business as usual.

Sadly I doubt this hope will be realised, unless climate record keepers rewrite history again.

The future is certain; it is only the past that is unpredictable – old Soviet joke.

Like this:

Like Loading…

Related

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/2Cpb1be

July 10, 2020 at 12:47AM

Electric Vehicles: Old, Not New, Market Competitor

“No electric car since 1902, regardless of battery or drive train, had been able to compete effectively against its contemporary internal combustion counterpart.” (– David Kirsch, The Electric Vehicle and The Burden of History. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2000, p. 203.)

“When government tries to pick losers and winners, it typically picks losers. Why? Because in a free market, consumers pick winners to leave the losers for government.” (- Robert Bradley, Jr. Electric Car Verdict: Another Government-Subsidized Bust, September 26, 2012.

How many times has it been stated that electric vehicles are ” a new technology.” Such was stated in a 2017 Think Progress article, “A Koch Front Group is Putting out Misleading Attack Ads on Electric Vehicles.”

But if only journalists such as Samantha Page knew energy history. If they did, they would be much more skeptical of the new next thing, particularly that which is government enabled and dependent.

Many of the government-subsidized energy initiatives advertised as new are, in fact, old. For example, rooftop solar and electricity generating wind turbines have a 20th-century history as told in The Economic Fall and Political Rise of Renewable Energy.

Electric vehicles (EVs) were commonplace in the United States in the first quarter of the 20th century as documented in David Kirsch’s The Electric Vehicle and The Burden of History (2000).

“In the late 1890s, at the dawn of the automobile era, steam, gasoline, and electric cars all competed to become the dominant automotive technology,” he states (p. 4). “By the early 1900s, the battle was over, and internal combustion was poised to become the prime mover of the twentieth century.”

Some more early history. When a young Henry Ford asked Thomas Edison (in 1896) whether he should design a car with an electric battery or with an internal combustion engine (burning gasoline), Edison responded:

Young man, that’s the thing; you have it. Keep at it. Electric cars must keep near to power stations. The storage battery is too heavy. Steam cars won’t do, either, for they require a boiler and fire. Your car is self-contained—carries its own power plant—no fire, no boiler, no smoke and no steam. You have the thing. Keep at it.

Ford later appreciatively wrote:

That bang on the table was worth worlds to me…. The man who knew most about electricity in the world had said that for the purpose my gas motor was better than any electric motor could be—it could go long distances, he said, and there would be stations to supply the cars with hydro-carbon. That was the first time I ever heard this term for liquid fuel. And this at a time when all the electrical engineers took it as an established fact that there could be nothing new and worthwhile that did not run by electricity. It was to be the universal power.

And years later, the two men re-learned the same lesson in their failed experiment to produce an “Electric Ford.”

Edison got the battery bug later in his career, seeing this field as his way to right the wrongs that others had bestowed on him when General Electric was taken over by others in 1892. The Edison Storage Battery Company, founded in 1900, encountered early setbacks, but Thomas Edison soldiered on and produced a superior nickel-iron-alkaline product by 1909.

But a major hoped-for market, motor vehicles, was using gasoline, not electricity. It was not for want of effort between two titans and dear friends. In 1914, Henry Ford announced a “Ford Electric” that would sell for $900 and have a range of 100 miles.

The brainchild of Thomas Edison himself, the concept described as “Mr. Ford’s personal project” and “experimental” by Ford Motor Company never got off the ground. The alkaline battery that penetrated the truck market was rejected by car makers because of its size and an incremental cost of between $200 and $600 per vehicle.

So it was back to 1896 for Ford and Edison, despite the latter’s $1.5 million battery effort.

Conclusion

Government policies have put EVs back into the market—for the elite. There are federal write-offs of $7,500 per vehicle and 30 percent for EV refueling stations. Car dealers use EV credits to average down regular SUVs to meet Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards too.

Rival technologies have competed for many decades and now for over a century when it comes to electric vs. fossil-fuel transportation. Removing subsidies, it is not hard to identify the winner.

If history is a guide, and if markets are allowed to prevail over the heavy hand of government, place your bet on what Thomas Edison intuited and then found out the hard way more than a century ago.

The post Electric Vehicles: Old, Not New, Market Competitor appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource

https://ift.tt/2AJlJbR

July 9, 2020 at 10:43PM

New Video : Climate Change Deniers

via Real Climate Science

https://ift.tt/3gK16vu

July 9, 2020 at 09:59PM