Democrats hope to press the "affordability" issue in this year's midterm election season, but there'…
CFIF on X CFIF on YouTube
Inflation: Comparing Trump and Biden...

Democrats hope to press the "affordability" issue in this year's midterm election season, but there's one potentially glaring problem for them, as illustrated by our friends at Unleash Prosperity...

 

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="827"] Biden Versus Trump on Inflation[/caption]

 …[more]

August 14, 2026 • 01:03 PM
Home Jester's Courtroom Lawsuit Involving Climate Science Community Heats Up
Lawsuit Involving Climate Science Community Heats Up Print
Thursday, November 09 2017

A Stanford University professor is suing the author and publisher of a peer reviewed study seeking $10 million in damages for "libel and slander" and the retraction of a published paper.

Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, has filed suit in D.C. Superior Court against Christopher Clack, of Vibrant Energy, and the publishers of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). According to new sources, Jacobson authored a paper in 2015 that mapped out a course to powering the U.S. entirely by renewable energy sources by the year 2050. In 2017, a study conducted by Clack and colleagues, and published in PNAS, refuted the findings in Jacobson’s paper.

In the lawsuit, Jacobson claims he reported at least 30 “false” and five “misleading statements” to NAS prior to the publication of Clack’s study, but NAS published the study anyway. Jacobson further alleges that the Clack study has harmed his reputation and career.

"The resulting headlines and articles in the press made Dr. Jacobson and his co-authors look like poor, sloppy, incompetent, and clueless researchers when, in fact, there were no 'modeling errors' made in their study," the suit states.

Clack, calling the lawsuit “unfortunate,” stated, “I am disappointed that this suit has been filed. Our paper underwent very rigorous peer review, and two further extraordinary editorial reviews by the nation’s most prestigious academic journal, which considered Dr. Jacobson’s criticisms and found them to be without merit. It's unfortunate that Dr. Jacobson has now chosen to re-argue his points in a court of law, rather than in the academic literature, where they belong."

—Source: mashable.com

Notable Quote   
 
"What is it with Democrats and their fake supporters, fake accents, fake backgrounds, fake accomplishments? Is it because they think voters are that shallow and stupid? Or because they don't want anyone to know how incredibly out of touch they are with regular Americans?This week, to cite just the most recent example, a group of 'Republicans for Talarico' disbanded after it turned out that they were…[more]
 
 
— Issues & Insights Editorial Board
 
Liberty Poll   

How often do you use one of the current commonly available AI services for any purpose?