by:
Michael Bastasch
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.
“On his
website, Dr. Jacobson houses a number of supporting documents for his
research on a 100 percent renewables transition, including a Microsoft
Excel file that shows everything from assumptions about levelized costs
of electricity to jobs estimates and energy demand projections,”
Everley wrote Wednesday of Jacobson’s data showing green energy would kill jobs.
“But now the spreadsheet on Dr. Jacobson’s website no longer shows a
loss of ‘Net Long Term Jobs,’” Everley wrote. “In fact, the highlighted
column has been deleted from the document entirely.”
Source: Energy In Depth screenshot of Jacobson’s data
supplementary material about 11 hours after Everley published his criticism Jan 5. Jacobson then
took to Twitter to lambast Everley for allegedly faking the data.
“Whereas
I have experienced cases where people didn’t like our results because
they affected their energy of choice, this is the first time I’ve come
across someone (Everley) actually falsifying data from our study then
refusing to correct it when informed of the error,” Jacobson told Media
Matters.
Jacobson
insists to The Daily Caller News Foundation that no “real” data was deleted from his study’s online supplementary material. He claims the data Everley used was “test” data.
Jacobson
also said the reason he deleted the data after Everley’s article was
because the spreadsheet it was on was “humongous” and filled with “dead”
test numbers.
Jacobson’s study
claims that phasing out fossil use in the U.S. and powering the country with 100 percent would create more than 2 million jobson net after accounting for jobs lost in coal mining, oil extraction and other industries.
Most
of the jobs created by green energy, however, are in construction and
not long-term operations jobs. It was based on this data that Jacobson
concluded 1.2 million long-term jobs would be lost — the same data that
Everley cited.
“Jacobson’s data show a net job gain because
‘Construction’ jobs created from a transition to 100 percent renewables
would exceed the number of ‘Long Term Jobs’ lost,” Everley wrote. “Many
environmental activists who have promoted Jacobson’s plan have spent
years denigrating construction work as being inferior to what they
called ‘real jobs.’”
Source
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