The "I'll Sue You If You Say My Science Is Full of Shit," Full of Shit 100% Wind and Solar Stanford Fool Chants On.
In 2017, the full of shit "Stanford Engineering Professor" antinuke Mark Z. Jacobson, sued other scientists and the journal PNAS for 10 million dollars for publishing criticism of his 2015 Paper in the same journal, PNAS, claiming the world could thrive on 100% so called "renewable energy."
He withdrew the suit after vast outrage in the scientific community, and was countersued for legal fees:
Stanford prof who sued critics loses appeal against $500,000 in legal fees
So called "renewable energy" fans here have always taken this asshole seriously, generating exercise of a lot of Appeal to Authority logical fallacies.
Since he published the nonsensical article in 2015, which was entitled "Low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for all purposes" in November 2015, that was submitted in May of that year, the world has spent approximately 8 trillion dollars on expanding grids, so called "renewable energy" and energy storage to make so called "renewable energy" appear to be reliable, which it isn't, anywhere on the whole fucking burning planet.
Source: IEA Energy Investments
How much money is 8 trillion dollars? There are approximately 31,557,000 seconds in a year. Thus 8 trillion is equivalent to all of the seconds in 250,000 years. For reference, our sister species, Neanderthals went extinct 40,000 years ago. Written language first appeared in the Sumerian culture about 5,000 years ago. We don't know and will never know if Sumerians sued each other over written criticism of other writings. For reference in economic terms, 8 trillion dollars is roughly a little less than double the Gross Domestic Product of India, a nation with more than 1 billion people living in it.
I wouldn't call 8 trillion dollars "low cost," particularly, when one considers that as of 2023, wind and solar combined produced just 16 Exajoules of Energy on a planet consuming 642 Exajoules as of that year.
IEA World Energy Outlook 2024
Table A.1a: World energy supply Page 296.
In "percent terms" this amounts to 16/642 X 100 = 2.5% of the world energy supply. Now, of course, I'm criticizing a Stanford Professor, and risk being sued, by pointing out that there is a difference between 2.5% and 100% in the "percent talk" that advocates of unsustainable, unreliable, land intensive, mining intensive so called "renewable energy" say will fix the planet.
On May 26, 2015, when Dr. Jacobson submitted his paper without warning PNAS that he would sue them if anyone questioned the paper they accepted, the average concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste was 403.81 ppm as reported at the Mauna Loa CO2 Observatory for that week, beginning May 24, of that year.
As of this morning, the concentration is as follows:
Week beginning on February 16, 2025: 427.64 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 424.55 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 400.43 ppm
Last updated: February 22, 2025
Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa
One doesn't need to be a professor (or a student) at Stanford to be able to tell the difference between 427.64 ppm and 403.18 ppm. It's 23.83 ppm, in less than 10 years.
Apparently the "renewable energy" nirvana hasn't broken out, similar to the case in which Jesus has not descended from heaven to judge the quick and the dead, which is also often predicted by a subset of people.
Don't worry; be happy, none of the numbers above have arrested the capacity for handing out bullshit in Palo Alto California about 100% so called "renewable energy," and publishing said bullshit in scientific journals." (I use the word "bullshit" at the risk of being sued, but happily I'm relatively anomalous here.)
Energy, Health, and Climate Costs of Carbon-Capture and Direct-Air-Capture versus 100%-Wind-Water-Solar Climate Policies in 149 Countries Mark Z. Jacobson, Danning Fu, Daniel J. Sambor, and Andreas Mühlbauer Environmental Science & Technology 2025 59 (6), 3034-3045.
No one of course, will criticize this crap in a scientific journal, because people would rather not be distracted from doing science by being dragged into court.
I personally suggest that one should not bother even to read the paper. I'm not going to do so, since I'm not into delusional chanting, particularly on a burning planet where real science, as opposed to wishful thinking, is under attack.
Enjoy, the extent possible under the circumstances, your Sunday.