UPDATED Nov. 1, 2017 at 5:45 p.m. PT with a statement from Christopher Clack.。
In a rare move that is likely to spark an intense debate in the climate science community, Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, has filed suit in D.C. Superior Court against the author and publisher of a peer reviewed study criticizing his work. 。
Jacobson is the lead author of a widely publicized study in the。 Jacobson is the lead author of a widely publicized study in the 。 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 。
(PNAS) in 2015 that mapped out a course to powering the U.S. entirely by renewable energy sources by the year 2050. 。
That paper was followed in 2017 by a study authored by Christopher Clack, of Vibrant Energy, a grid modeling company, along with 20 coauthors. That study found serious flaws in Jacobson's methodology, and it too was published in PNAS. The journal also published a rebuttal by Jacobson and his coauthors refuting Clack's findings.
。SEE ALSO:Can the U.S. run only on wind, water, and solar power?
SEE ALSO:Can the U.S. run only on wind, water, and solar power? Scientists disagree. 。
Typically, in climate science or any other scientific field, that would be the end of this story -- scientists tend to argue their ideas via peer reviewed studies and conference panels, not through the courts. 。
That's not the case this time. 。
The suit, filed on Sept. 29, seeks $10 million in damages for "libel and slander" from Clack and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which publishes the journal in which both studies appeared. 。
Mashable Light SpeedWant more out-of-this world tech, space and science stories?Sign up for Mashable's weekly Light Speed newsletter. 。
By signing up you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. 。
Thanks for signing up! 。
The suit states that in publishing the study critical of Jacobson's work, the NAS violated its own publication standards. The suit also lays out the case that the Clack study harmed Jacobson's career by alleging that he and his coauthors at Stanford had committed basic computer modeling errors.。
"Baseless allegations of modeling errors can be found throughout the Clack article," the lawsuit states. "These allegations are relevant and particularly damaging to Dr. Jacobson, whose main research work is on the development and application of numerical computer models." 。
Tweet may have been deleted 。
Jacobson and his team contend that they did not make modeling errors, but instead included assumptions in their models that they had told Clack about before his study was published. "There were no mathematical or computational errors in any of the underlying models. Rather, Dr. Jacobson and his co-authors made an intentional modeling assumption," which concerned the amount of electricity generated from hydropower. 。
Jacobson's suit says the Clack article is continuing to damage his reputation by getting wide media exposure.。
"The resulting headlines and articles in the press made Dr. Jacobson and his co-authors look like poor, sloppy, incompetent, and clueless researchers when, in fact, there were no 'modeling errors' made in their study," the suit states. 。 Tweet may have been deleted 。Tweet may have been deleted。
The suit seeks punitive damages from both the NAS and Clack, as well as the Clack paper's retraction. 。
Clack called the lawsuit "unfortunate" in a statement to 。
Mashable 。 . 。
Mashable。
(责任编辑：綜合)
Twitter grants everyone access to quality filter for tweet notifications
Apple Watch Series 8 introduces new ovulation and fertility trackingApple Watch 8 pre'Quordle' today: See each 'Quordle' answer and hints for August 20
You will love/hate Cards Against Humanity's new fortune cookiesFake news reports from the Newseum are infinitely better than actual news
Actual investigative journalism: who needs it?At least, that's what some people will likely conclude
...[详细]Foreo UFO 2 review: This device takes sheet masking to the next level
Sheet masks are an affordable, no frills at-home facial treatment that are widely popular. So why no
...[详细]See NASA's DART smash into an asteroid in newly released footage
There is always someone on call, watching the ATLAS telescopes. The ATLAS survey, or Asteroid Terres
...[详细]Have you noticed that the more time goes on, the more we use our phones to stop people from connecti
...[详细]Photos show the Blue Cut fire blazing a path of destruction in California
A fast moving wildfire continued raging near San Bernadino, California, forcing the evacuation of at
...[详细]Have you noticed that the more time goes on, the more we use our phones to stop people from connecti
...[详细]TikTok videos show heartwarming support for California's farmworkers
The people that pick your vegetables and harvest your fruit deserve to vote to unionize without bein
...[详细]Disney+ will stream 'Thor: Love and Thunder' on September 8. What we know so far.
UPDATE: Aug. 22, 2022, 2:28 p.m. GMT Disney+ confirmed in a tweet that Thor: Love and Thunder will b
...[详细]Olympic security asks female Iranian fan to drop protest sign
Olympic security personnel questioned a female Iranian volleyball fan Saturday when she showed up fo
...[详细]'Quordle' today: See each 'Quordle' answer and hints for August 26
Welp, you made it to yet another Friday only to find that today's Quordleis a doozy. How are you sup
...[详细]Researchers create temporary tattoos you can use to control your devices
How to remove yourself from group texts on iOS and Android
That paper was followed in 2017 by a study authored by Christopher Clack, of Vibrant Energy, a grid modeling company, along with 20 coauthors. That study found serious flaws in Jacobson's methodology, and it too was published in PNAS. The journal also published a rebuttal by Jacobson and his coauthors refuting Clack's findings.
。