Charlatan Comeuppance

I have had a continuing problem with Climate Action Council misinformation as I documented here.  Council leadership failed to call out members of the Council who were saying things that were inconsistent with the State analyses because the work conveniently supports the narrative that there is an existential threat from climate change caused by man-made greenhouse emissions and that existing technology can rapidly move away from fossil fuels and rely on wind, sun, and hydro.  It turns out that a couple of the acclaimed champions of this narrative have lost recent legal battles that I believe discredit their claims further.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 500 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Background

The Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. Two targets address the electric sector: 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy by 2030 and all electricity must be generated by “zero-emissions” resources by 2040. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantified the impact of the electrification strategies.  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022. 

Charlatans

Wordnik defines charlatan as “A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge.”  Put another way these people pretend to have knowledge, skills, or expertise they do not possess, apparently with the “intention of deceiving others for personal gain, such as money, power, or fame.” I think that applies to two perceived champions of the climate change and green energy crusade because both of their claims to fame do not stand up to scrutiny.  Robert Bryce describes instances where each of these individuals has tried lawsuits against their critics but have failed. 

Michael Mann was the primary proponent of the Hockey Stick graph that claims that Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the last 1,000 years were relatively flat and only increased rapidly with the advent of anthropogenic GHG emissions.  His claim wiped out the widely accepted existence of the Medieval Warming Period, but this extraordinary claim was not backed by extraordinary proof.  I believe that the Hockey Stick graphic is BS on many levels and other critics said so too.  In response to his critics Michael Mann filed a lawsuit claiming that his work was proven because of peer review and that the critics had caused him to lose grant funding.  The basis of the hockey stick graph is a unique statistical approach that may have passed peer review in a climate journal but certainly could not pass peer review in a statistical journal.  

Bryce explains that that:

 In his ruling , the judge on the case, Alfred S. Irving, Jr., said that Mann and his lawyers: “Each knowingly made a false statement of fact to the Court and Dr. Mann knowingly participated in the falsehood, endeavoring to make the strongest case possible even if it required using erroneous and misleading information.

Bryce references a  report by Roger Pielke Jr. that explains that a federal court in Washington, DC, ruled that Mann and his lawyers acted in “bad faith” and “made false representations to the jury and the Court regarding damages stemming from loss of grant funding.”  Francis Menton provides more details and makes the point that Mann never tried to defend his scientific claims.

Of more interest to New York is that Mark Jacobson is the other example.  Jacobson is the co-author with Dr Robert Howarth of the paper that strongly influenced the Climate Act.  Bryce includes a concise summary of Jacobson’s shenanigans:

In 2017, as I reported in National Review, Jacobson filed a $10 million defamation lawsuit against the National Academy of Sciences and Chris Clack, the lead author of a paper the NAS published that year that had thoroughly debunked one of Jacobson’s papers. Jacobson, a thin-skinned engineering professor, had written a paper claiming the US could run entirely on alt-energy by 2050. I explained that Clack’s paper found that:

“Jacobson had overstated hydropower’s potential by a factor of ten or so. The land-use requirements for wind power were equally cartoonish. Clack determined that Jacobson’s all-renewable scheme would require covering more than 190,000 square miles with turbines — an area larger than the state of California. Given the burgeoning coast-to-coast backlash against Big Wind, such a notion is absurd on its face.”

Jacobson’s lawsuit claimed that the paper had damaged his reputation and made him and his co-authors look bad. Rather than debate the issues, Jacobson sued.

Bryce recounts what happened then:

In February 2018, Jacobson, in an apparent act of remorse, suddenly withdrew his lawsuit against NAS and Clack. But the case wasn’t forgotten. As I explained in Forbes in 2020, a federal court judge in Washington, DC, sided with NAS and Clack and ordered Jacobson to pay their legal fees.

Bryce explains that since then “Jacobson has spent years bobbing and weaving his way through the courts in an ongoing attempt to avoid paying those fees.”   It is not clear if the NAS fees were paid but Clack told Bryson that Jacobson paid what was owed to him.  Finally, Bryce notes that “In 2022, Jacobson sued Stanford. That case was apparently settled in 2023. In February 2024, according to Retraction Watch, Jacobson lost in his appeal to avoid paying the NAS’s fees.”

Howarth’s statement approving the Scoping Plan states that:

I further wish to acknowledge the incredible role that Prof. Mark Jacobson of Stanford has played in moving the entire world towards a carbon-free future, including New York State. A decade ago, Jacobson, I and others laid out a specific plan for New York (Jacobson et al. 2013). In that peer-reviewed analysis, we demonstrated that our State could rapidly move away from fossil fuels and instead be fueled completely by the power of the wind, the sun, and hydro. We further demonstrated that it could be done completely with technologies available at that time (a decade ago), that it could be cost effective, that it would be hugely beneficial for public health and energy security, and that it would stimulate a large increase in well-paying jobs.

In response to critics of his work Jacobson did not engage in open dialogue but instead took the critics to court.  In my opinion that indicates that he realized that the claims would not hold up to scrutiny.  For example, the claim that no new technology is needed runs contrary to reputable analyses of the future New York electric system that agree that new Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource (DEFR)  technologies are necessary to keep the lights on during periods of extended low wind and solar resource availability.  Clearly Howarth’s claim based on Jacobson’s approach is incorrect.     

Discussion

It is a sad situation that the Climate Act is built upon analyses that were so weak that the authors could not resolve criticism by open dialogue.  The iconic “Hockey Stick” graph showing the purported undeniable relationship between global temperatures and greenhouse gases has been cited as proof of an existential threat.  Despite claims that it has been vindicated, it is invalid. The Scoping Plan transition plan is based on the Climate Act belief that no new technologies would be required to make a transition to an energy system relying on wind, solar, and hydro. This is also wrong.

The claim about no new technology is needed is more troublesome.  It is the basis of the aspirational schedule and has been cited as proof that the wind, solar, and energy storage approach will work.  The problem is that it will only work if DEFR is developed and deployed.  In my opinion, the most promising DEFR backup technology is nuclear generation because it is the only candidate resource that is technologically ready, can be expanded as needed, and does not suffer from limitations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the only viable DEFR solution is nuclear, then renewables cannot be implemented without it.  But nuclear can replace renewables, eliminating the need for a massive DEFR backup resource.  It is obviously prudent to pause renewable development until DEFR feasibility is proven because nuclear generation may be the only viable path to zero emissions.  The Howarth/Jacobson myth has contributed to the lack of more serious consideration of nuclear.

Conclusion

This is another example of the weak rationale for the Climate Act.  I cannot see any scenario where this will end well.