{"id":32847,"date":"2017-11-06T18:19:19","date_gmt":"2017-11-06T17:19:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it\/?p=32847"},"modified":"2017-11-06T18:19:19","modified_gmt":"2017-11-06T17:19:19","slug":"che-caratterino","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/2017\/11\/06\/che-caratterino\/","title":{"rendered":"Che caratterino"},"content":{"rendered":"

Su Nature<\/em>\u00a0Chris Woolton riassume<\/span><\/span><\/a> la storia penosa e un po’ assurda, trovo, della causa per$10 milioni di danni, intentata da Mark Jacobson di Stanford all’Accademia americana delle scienze in quanto editore dei PNAS<\/em> perch\u00e9 la rivista non ha ritrattato il “repor<\/span><\/a>t<\/span>“<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>del matematico Christopher Clack et al.<\/em> che critica il suo paper<\/span> <\/span><\/a>sul passaggio alle energie rinnovabili in USA a costo quasi zero:<\/p>\n

Jacobson was the lead author of a high-profile\u00a0PNAS<\/i>\u00a0paper\u00a0published in December 2015 making the case that the continental United States could meet nearly 100% of its energy needs using wind, water and solar sources as early as 2050. A rebuttal\u00a0written by Clack \u2014 then at the University of Colorado Boulder \u2014 and 20 co-authors, and published in\u00a0PNAS<\/i>\u00a0in June 2017, questioned Jacobson’s methodology and challenged his conclusions. The authors argued, among other things, that Jacobson\u2019s paper overestimated the maximum outputs from hydroelectric facilities and the nation\u2019s capacity to store energy produced by renewable sources.<\/p>\n

In the lawsuit, Jacobson says that he had alerted\u00a0PNAS<\/i>\u00a0to 30 falsehoods and five \u201cmaterially misleading statements\u201d in Clack\u2019s paper before its publication. The complaint states that almost all of those inaccuracies remained in the published version.<\/p>\n

La rivista l’ha pubblicata insieme alla replica<\/span><\/a><\/span> di Jacobson et al. limitata a 500 parole. Pretende una\u00a0ritrattazione<\/span><\/a><\/span> e si ritiene danneggiato perch\u00e9 a suo avviso i calcoli di Clack dovevano uscire come “lettera” che equivale a un’opinione, e non come “report” che equivale a un paper.
\nLa causa<\/a> fa discutere<\/a> da quando Jacobson l’ha annunciata<\/span><\/a><\/span> su twitter, rif. per es. Christa Marshall su\u00a0\u00a0Chris Mooney<\/span><\/span><\/a> sul WaPo, MIT Tech. Rev.<\/a>\u00a0e parecchi altri, anche perch\u00e9 attualmente l’unico scenario cos\u00ec ottimista \u00e8 quello di Jacobson et al. il che tende a suscitare un po’ di scetticismo.
\nCome mi succede spesso, trovo che abbia ragione Gavin Schmidt<\/p>\n

Overall, I think this is exceedingly ill-advised. Perhaps a quick correction of factual points & a comment to highlight differences in assumptions\u00a0could lead to a withdrawal of the action. And if @theNASEM<\/a> changed their comment policy, that would be good too.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Agli ordini!<\/strong><\/a>
\nSul Guardian<\/em>, Dana Nuccitelli <\/a>spiega la scienza alternativa del congressista repubblicano Jim Bridenstine, il primo non scienziato nominato a capo della NASA, quale autore di una proposta di legge che ne sopprimerebbe la ricerca sul clima, nonch\u00e9 famoso per approvare tutte le leggi <\/span><\/a><\/span>che garantiscono alle industrie la libert\u00e0 di danneggiare la salute dei cittadini e di inquinare l’ambiente :<\/p>\n

At his Senate hearing last week, Bridenstine tried to remake his image. He said that his previous science-denying, politically polarizing comments came with the job of being a Republican congressman, and that as\u00a0Nasa<\/a>\u00a0administrator he would be apolitical. A kinder, gentler Bridenstine. But while he softened his climate science denial, his proclaimed new views remain in line with the rest of the harshly anti-science Trump administration.<\/p>\n

Invece di ripetere che il riscaldamento globale \u00e8 una truffa e altre bufale come:<\/p>\n

global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago. Global temperature changes, when they exist, correlate with Sun output and ocean cycles. During the Medieval Warm Period from 800 to 1300 A.D.\u2014long before cars, power plants, or the Industrial Revolution\u2014temperatures were warmer than today<\/em><\/p>\n

ora Bridenstine le annacqua un po’:<\/p>\n

It\u2019s going to depend on a lot of factors and we\u2019re still learning more about that every day. In some years you could say absolutely, in other years, during sun cycles and other things, there are other contributing factors that would have maybe more of an impact.<\/em><\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Se proprio non volete comprarlo<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

gli articoli<\/a> sul tema sono gratis.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Su Nature\u00a0Chris Woolton riassume la storia penosa e un po’ assurda, trovo, della causa per$10 milioni di danni, intentata da Mark Jacobson di Stanford all’Accademia americana delle scienze in quanto editore dei PNAS perch\u00e9 la rivista non ha ritrattato il “report“\u00a0del matematico Christopher Clack et al. che critica il suo paper sul passaggio alle energie… Continua a leggere Che caratterino<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,10,12,15,25],"tags":[2008,2313,3731,4563,4714,7193],"class_list":["post-32847","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bufala","category-clima","category-donne-e-scienza","category-economia","category-politica","tag-dissensi","tag-energie-rinnovabili","tag-jim-bridenstine","tag-modelli","tag-nasa","tag-vie-legali","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32847","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32847"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32847\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32847"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32847"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32847"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}