— 37 Comments
A Stanford professor is deflecting criticism after allegedly deleting data from a year-old study in order to avoid inadvertently showing how green energy will kill millions of long-term jobs.
Prof. Mark Jacobson rebuked criticisms brought by Steve Everley of Energy In Depth, an oil industry-backed education project, that the Stanford study showed that using 100 percent green energy would result in 1.2 million jobs being eliminated from the economy. Jacobson said Everley’s claim was a “flat out lie” and relied on “faked data.”
Everley’s claim was based on data taken from Jacobson’s own research, but when Everley went back to show the Stanford professor that the proof was in his own study, he found the data was gone — Jacobson had deleted it just hours after Everley exposed the job loss numbers.....
To Read More
My Take - This story isn't really unique. It's another piece of evidence that when it comes to grant money - scientific integrity is an oxymoron. First do a study - hide the facts - lie about hiding the facts - attack those who disagreed and exposed their corruption in the media. You may wish to read some of the comments.
The accusation by Everley and repeated by Bastasch is entirely false, and they are aware it is false yet they still published it. Here are the facts:
ReplyDelete1) Every single data point in the spreadsheet used for our published paper is still there and no data used in any way in the paper was ever removed at any time. Any reader can compare the published paper with the spreadsheet to determine this themselves. The published 50-state paper and spreadsheet are both at the 13th line down at
http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-50-USState-plans.html
under the title, "100% clean, renewable WWS all-sector energy roadmaps for all 50 United States"
2) Mr. Everley was informed on January 5 that he wrongly used job production test numbers in the spreadsheet, which were used for no purpose other than testing, and were in no way "data" used for the paper. They were akin to random test numbers:
https://twitter.com/mzjacobson/status/684501578556911616
3) In that same message, he was informed of where the correct job production numbers were. Even after being informed, he still used the irrelevant test numbers in his article. The numbers Evereley used had nothing to do with our paper, were never used in our paper, and were never linked to any real numbers in our paper. Anyone can see this themselves by looking in Everley's original article for job production numbers. The numbers Everley used appear nowhere in our paper.
4) When the random test numbers, that Everley improperly abused, were removed, he cried and made a false accusation, claiming that numbers relevant to the study or even part of the study were removed. The numbers removed were extraneous and never part of the study or used in any way, shape, or form for the study, and he was informed of this on January 5. His accusation is a distraction from the fact that he was caught falsifying job numbers from our study:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/11/1468385/-We-Don-t-Need-No-Education-Oil-Group-Misleads-On-Clean-Job-Potential
Mr. Jacobson,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response and I can assure you I will follow this story and the facts wherever they may lead and publish them for the public's consumption.
Best wishes,
Rich Kozlovich