Looking around for what other people thought about the "reply book" http://www.roadmaptonowhere.com/ which was a great read, but not much came up on the first page of a google search.
But it was interesting to see this article on the original author of the idea of 100% renewable energy roadmap "Professor Mark Jacobson" that he disliked criticism against the viability of his 100% renewable energy ideas so much he is suing other scientists for $10million dollars
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/12/12/stanfords-100-renewables-a-roadmap-to-nowhere/#93460c17e25b
In a bizarre and completely unscientific move, Jacobson filed a $10 million libel suit in Washington, D.C. Superior Court against another scientist, Dr. Christopher Clack, who dared to criticize him.
Along with 20 other prominent scientists, Clack was the lead author of a paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that pointed out the scientific flaws in Jacobson’s thesis. Flaws that Jacobson refused to address during the normal scientific peer-review process.
And there were many.
Jacobson also filed against the Academy as publisher, to force them to retract the critique.
This was one of the scientific papers against him that caused the lawsuit http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/16/1610381114.full
So while many other scientists consider Jaconson a bit of a joke, NASA has placed him up high on their profile with stuff on their website about him and how great he is https://www.nasa.gov/ames/ocs/2014-summer-series/mark-jacobson
To me it makes perfect sense he would sue, there is just so much money in the subsidies and supporting of this science in general that suing would be a natural thing to do, because its all just about the money.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/university-fires-controversial-marine-scientist-for-alleged-conduct-breaches
Like the scientist, Peter Ridd from the James cook university who got fired because of his studying of the great barrier reef led him to believe global warming isn't hurting the reef at all and might even be helping it. This belief means you don't get the possible billions of research money handed out by the government who want to please the voters that they are doing something on climate change.
On another note, while watching the news on mainstream media TV, I thought about the fact that it doesn't take much to debunk the viability of wind/solar renewables in terms of its effectiveness against global warming vs Nuclear, but you never see even conservative news TV/article break some of the facts like what is in the roadmaptonowhere.com book into their news.
With the news I am surprised by the lack of a little bit of simple arithmetic explaining things like average output etc, or talking about the fact that while natural gas is frequently used as the friend of intermittent wind/solar that it has an
incredible 84 times more warming gas than co2 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential#Values ) , and that even the "IPCC
calculated that a leakage of 2.8 percent would cancel any greenhouse advantage of gas over fossil fuels like oil and coal" https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Natural_gas_transmission_leakage_rates#Leakage_Rates_Worldwide_and_in_the_United_States
But often gas power plant leakage is being measured at 10%, so the "transition" to gas backed renewables is probably increasing global warming even if the total co2 emissions might not technically be going up.
Gas power plants emit up to 120 times more methane than previously thought, study finds
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gas-power-plants-methane-emissions-120-times-more-study-purdue-edf-greenhouse-global-warming-climate-a7641471.html
When looking at natural-gas/methane on the NOAA site, I looked at the only measuring site in Australia and could see methane/nat-gas has rocketed massively higher upwards after 2009 which is around the time when South Australia started moving more to wind and relying on more and more gas.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=CGO&program=ccgg&type=ts
I think the mainstream media know renewables are dumb but the conservative side actually don't try that hard reporting against it because they know letting it unfold on the public for every reason possible such as letting their electricity prices go up and not actually lowering global warming effects means they have news to laugh at the left side for years to come.
And leftwing media report how great renewables are because its just what people want to hear.
I think all up its bad old lazy media, media thats well entrenched into the system and isn't motivated to care and even try and do a good job. The internet has turned upside down so many industries, but because TV gets its own dedicated spectrum separated from the internet, it remains a bad source and ineffective source of information. People still expect to be drip fed good accurate information over TV/Radio but that just doesn't happen anymore and its kind of turned into cancer.
The facts on renewables shouldn't be that hard for journalists to amalgamate and put into something that's easily absorbable but I don't ever see it in the media.
So I have said it before and I will say it again, the faster the TV spectrum is wiped off the map and amalgamated into 5G mobile wireless internet only data, the better media, in general, will become. This issue just boils down into this problem again and again for me when I look at it.
Looking at what the FCC did in the USA looks great https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_reallocation#Broadcast_incentive_auction
And it needs to happen everywhere, globally. The fact there are "spectrum speculators" that buy failing TV stations and just sit on them waiting for the time when they can finally sell the TV spectrum for internet wireless access is a great sign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_reallocation#%22Spectrum_speculators%22
On 4G mobile I have been able to get 260mbps for a fair while, and most of the carriers in Australia are now offering near unlimited data. But the good news is more cell sites are being upgraded.. Lately I been able to get over 100mbps anywhere I go around Melbourne
http://www.speedtest.net/result/a/3913051757
Its carrier band aggregation technology that makes these speeds possible and the TV stations sit on billions worth of valuable spectrum that can help continue its rollout for more people everywhere. I am still a big fan on cable based internet mind you, we need both, but we don't need old media sitting on valuable internet spectrum just to do a crap job informing people, its key to the cancer.
*Add* I thought I would post this chart to remind folks how little change to greenhouse gases Germany has changed over the years.
Over the whole year, or typical 24 hours..
If we were comparing these two data sets like they were cars or anything else then it would be considered a joke.