WV SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION Civil Actions Branch 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 5000. Washington. D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-1 133 0 Website: MARK Z. JACOBSON Vs. CA. No. 2017 CA 006685 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES et al INITIAL ORDER AND ADDENDUM Pursuant to DC. Code 1 1-906 and District ofColuinbia Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure (?Super Ct. Civ. 40-1. it is hereby Was follows: (1) Effective this date, this case has assigned to the individual calendar designated below. All future ?lings in this case shall bear the calendar number and the judge?s name beneath the case number in the caption. On ?ling any motion or paper related thereto, one copy (for the judge) must be delivered to the Clerk along with the original. (2) Within 60 days of the ?ling of the complaint, plaintiff must ?le proof of serving on each defendant; copies of the summons, the complaint, and this Initial Order and Addendum. As to any defendant for whom such proof of service has not been ?led, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution unless the time for serving the defendant has been extended as provided in Super Ct. Civ. R, 4(m) (3) Within 21 days of service as described above, except as otherwise noted in Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12, each defendant must respond to the complaint by ?ling an answer or other responsive pleading. As to the defendant who has failed to respond, a default and judgment will be entered unless the time to respond has been extended as provided in Super Ct. Civ. R. 55(a). (4) At the time and place noted below, all c0unsel and unrepresented parties shall appear before the assigned judge at an initial scheduling and settlement conference to discuss the possibilities of settlement and to establish a schedule for the completion of all proceedings, including, nonnally, either mediation, case evaluation, or arbitration. Counsel shall discuss with their clients DEE. to the conference whether the clients are agreeable to binding or non-binding arbitration. This order is the only notice that parties and counsel will receive concerning this Conference. (5) Upon advice that the date noted below is inconvenient for any party or counsel, the Quality Review Branch (202) 879-1750 may continue the Conference once, with the consent of all parties, to either of the two succeeding Fridays. Request must be made not less than seven business days before the scheduling conference date. No other continuance of the conference will be granted except upon motion for good cause shown. (6) Parties are responsible for obtaining and complying with all requirements of the General Order for Civil cases, each judge?s Supplement to the General Order and the General Mediation Order. Copies of these orders are available in the Courtroom and on the Court?s website Chief Judge Robert E. Morin Case Assigned to: Judge ELIZABETH WINGO Date: October 4, 2017 Initial Conference: 9:30 am, Friday, December 29, 2017 Location: Courtroom A-47 515 5th Street NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001 ADDENDU TO INITIAL ORDER AFFECTING ALL MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES In accordance with the Medical Malpractice Proceedings Act of 2006, DC. Code l6-280l, et seq. (2007 Winter Supp). an action is filed in the court against a healthcare provider alleging medical malpractice, the court shall require the parties to enter into mediation, without discovery or, if all parties agree[,] with only limited discovery that will not interfere with the completion of mediation within 30 days of the Initial Scheduling and Settlement Conference prior to any further litigation in an effort to reach a settlement agreement. The early mediation schedule shall be included in the Scheduling Order following the 1880 Unless all parties agree, the stay of discovery shall not be more than 30 days after the To ensure compliance with this legislation, on or before the date of the ISSC, the Court will notify all attorneys and pro se parties of the date and time of the early mediation session and the name of the assigned mediator. Information about the early mediation date also is available over the internet at To facilitate this process, all counsel and pro se parties in every medical malpractice case are required to confer, jointly complete and sign an EARLY MEDIATION FORM, which must be ?led no later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the DC. Code 16-2825 Two separate Early Mediation Forms are available. Both forms may be obtained at One form is to be used for early mediation with a mediator from the multi-door medical malpractice mediator roster; the second form is to be used for early mediation with a private mediator. Both forms also are available in the Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Of?ce, Suite 2900, 410 Street, NW. Plaintiffs counsel is responsible for eFiling the form and is required to e-mail a courtesy copy to earlymedmal@dcsc.gov. Pro .sc Plaintiffs who elect not to eFile may file by hand in the Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Office. A roster of medical malpractice mediators available through the Court's Multi-Door Dispute Resolution 'Division, with biographical information about each mediator, can be found at All individuals on the roster are judges or lawyers with at least 10 years of signi?cant experience in medical malpractice litigation. DC. Code? If the parties cannot agree on a mediator, the Court will appoint one. DC. Code The following persons are required by statute to attend personally the Early Mediation Conference: (I) all parties, (2) for parties that are not individuals, a representative with settlement authority; (3) in cases involving an insurance company, a representative of the company with settlement authority; and (4) attorneys representing each party with primary responsibility for the case. DC. Code? 16-2824. No later than ten (IO) days after the early mediation session has terminated, Plaintiff must eFile with the Court a report prepared by the mediator, including a private mediator, regarding: (l)attendance; (2) whether a settlement was reached; or, (3) if a settlement was not reached, any agreements to narrow the scope of the dispute, limit discovery, facilitate future settlement, hold another mediation session, or otherwise reduce the cost and time of trial preparation. D.C. Code? l6-2826. Any Plaintiff who is pro se may elect to file the report by hand with the Civil Actions Branch. The forms to be used for early mediation reports are available at Chief Judge Robert E. Morin CA [0-60 Superior Court of the District of Coiumbia DIVISION 500 Indium Avenue. NW, Sum 5000 Washington, D.C. 29001?Ibtephonet (202} 879-! [53 MARK JACOBSON, Plaintiff ]:0006685 Case Numtl 7M (SLACK. {misndam .. . SUMMONS To me Know: named {)cik?ndam: You are hereby summoned and rcquimd to 5c. vs an Answer to the. auachc? Complaint, either gmrsormti5; ?aming}: an Niamey, within twenty (20) days.- a?xzr service. oftkis summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you are being sued as an of?cer or agency of the United States Govcmmem or the t'i?sirict of Columbia you have sixty (60) days a?er sarvicc of ihis summons to serve your Answer. A copy of $19. A nswer {:51 be. mailed the: anorncy fur the party p?aintiff who is. suing you. The attorney?s name and appear below. If piain??" has no attorney, a copy mi" 1319. Answer must be. ma??cd to. {he plaintif?i?at 1h: address awed or: this Smnmons. You are rust: rcquircd to ?ic the. original Answer with the. Court in Suite 5000 an 500 indium: Avenue, NW, 8:30 am. and 5:00 pm, Mondays through Fridays or between 9:00 am. and 12:00 1100:} on Saturdays. You may flit. the. original Answer with the (hurt either before you serve a copy of the Answer on the. plaintiff or within ?ve days aim you have. scrvad the plaintiff. If you faii to ?le an Answer, judgment by default may be catered against you for the {chef demanded in the comp?a?nL PAUL. S. '9 #415614 Name (sf Pla?ni?ft?s CQHEN SEGEJAS PNJAS GREENPWL FURMAN I . Address 1828 St NW Sun's 7?05; Washingtm. (X: 26036 202-466-4110 pm. ?I?clep?xmc 112' RE if?? - i2? (202)879-4328 Vau?iez spasm an {262) 8794828 pour une traducuon ca ma Mi dish ?nay gm {2:32) 879.4828 (202) amaze i (202} 879-4828 Liam- If YOLE FAIL 1?0 flu-I- AN ANSWER WWI-RN THE-1 TIME ABOVE, OR IF, AFTER Vim} ANSWER, APPEAR ANY t?iM'tE. THIS NOTIFIES You To DO 50, A BY MAY HIS. tiN?I?fiiUZD AGAINST YOU FOR THE DAMAGES OR OTHER REUEF DEMANDBD iN THE IF 'E'iliS YOUR WAGES MAY BE MTMTIISD (13R OR PROPERTY OR REAL $01.1 OWN MAY BE $03,010 MY Tim JUDGMENT. T0 OPPOSF. HMS A Ii? yen wish to talk to as lawycz' and feel that you cannot aim?! to pay a fee. to a lawyer, contact one the of?ces of the Legs} Aid Socicty the mgai Services for M31) or come ti) Suite 5006 a! $00 Sn?izma A vcmun for mare in?ammation concerning pieces when: you may ask For such help. Sec reverse side for Spanish translation Ves a! dam: {a :mduccimn ill {25li Superior Court of the District of Columbia CIVIL DIVISION- CIVIL ACTIONS BRANCH INPORMATIONSHBET Gum mammamw ?rmware?; Nam Inland: mm . . mum momma wows.) Telephone No: S: digit Uni?od Barrio; 2024054110 41am 0M: TYPEOFCASE: Non-July 6mm 121"?th 10.000.000.00 OM: PENDING CASES) RELATEDTO BEING FILE) Can-2N0; My: Colorado?: CucNo.: Judy: W: NATURBOFSUIT: ACONTIACTS mew DOIMOICW Dawerwm Cl Gum mem Gammon-drink! 007W gamma-u uu-mpoomoum ?Wbmm humanism-scam BMW meamm Dasha-p- Dozen-um D?mw 07 D.C. Cabin-102 C. PERSONAL Tom IOMJW [3&de gum-asund- MW) BUSH-HM ?mm IIWMIMWW) 013mm wamsm DMMW) Diaww aomsa 21AM (?Folsom DIOWMM Dnme-Tm MW) [:1an mum ?15 Information Sheet, Continued comm ?10an Swami-mat Denim nmmnu [Emma-1m? macaw-941) muwomw. [:Ilo 7:.ch [:anme Damn-dawn 31 ?meadow Blond-mm EanniTm Cl 33% [Joan-worm nsubdormm Boar-upJW "mm-anoma- (210"me CMOIMW El mummy) ?Worm manna-(neon; (papa-arm) Cause-e 42-33mm") Samara-mm Cl 25th D. RIALPROPIKTY ?warm [:1sz ?Laura/Wacmm momma-nan) ClaoLuuzruIWu-Cmmoau glomFWb?d-lw DslruunmocWCo-uomm Attorney?s Signature Date CV-WMUNIS THE summon COURT . FOR THE msnucr or COLUMBIA MARK Z. JACOBSON, 946 Valdez Place Stanford, CA 94305, Plaintiff, CHRISTOPHER T. M. CLACK, 690 Fmsil Bed Circle Erie, CO 80516, and ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 2101 Constitution Avenue? NW Washington, DC 20418, Please Serve: Audrey Mosiey 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW NASZIO Washington, DC 20418 Defendants. Filed D.C. Superior Court 09/29/2017 Clerk of the Court CIVIL ACTIONS BRANCH SEP 29 201i Supe?OrCoun 01' the 0mm: of Columbia Washington. D.C. a 17j0006635 C. A. No. COM AND RY DEMAN COMES OW Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson, Phi). (?Dr Jacobson? or "?Piainti??), and states his Complaint against Christopher T. M. Clack, lack") and the National Academy (sometimes referred to together as as follows: l. DrJnoobeonis a Professor of Civil and Enviromnaital Engineering at Stanford, the Director of the Institute fortheEnvironrnent andthePrecourt lnstituteforEnergy. Heisarenowned scientistonglobelwmningndair pollution and the development of large-scale clean, renewable any solution: for those problems. From 1991 through August 27, 2017, be in published 152 peer-reviewed scienti?c articles, including more than 63 as ?rst author. Dr. Jacobson has also written two textbooks, peer-reviewed literature. 2. Dr. Clack is an individual who, on information and belief, resides in the sate of Colorado. Dr. Clock is the founder and Chief Executive Of?cer of Vibrant Clem Energy, LLC According to website, purpose is to ?purrm[e] irnelligent transformation ofthe electric and my system to meet the needs ofthe 21'l century, while still providing powa forecasts for wind and solar moss north America.? Formerly, Dr. Clack we: a mathematicianwiththeCoopmtive Environmental Sdmcega pertnashipbetweentheNatioml University, Boulder. 3. Itis principal place of business located at 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20418. NAS publishes the scienti?c journal ?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? The NAS website describes PNAS as ?one of me world?s most-cited and comprehensive multidisciplinary scienti?c journals, publishing more 3,800 research papers annually. The journal?s content spans the biological. physical, and social sciences and is gobs] in scope.? PNAS is published on the Internet. 4. 5. The Court may exercise pasonal jurisdiction ova Defendant NAS pursumt DC Code Columbia. 6. The Court may unwise personal jurisdiction over Defendant Dr. Clack pursuant to DC Code Section in that Dr. Jacobson's claim for rcliefarises from Dr. Clack?s tramecting business in the District of Columbia by submitting a paper to DC.- headquartered NAS for publication in its journal PNAS which would be read by, among others, individuals residing and/or working in the District of Columbia. mm NAS Mention Th TV 7. publication policy (Exln?bit l) for PNAS distinguishes among ?ve differmt types of publications: Raearch Reports, Letters, Front Matter, Commentaries, Perspectives, and Colloquium Papers Each of those ?ve publications has its own particular criteria. 1hetwotypesofpublications pertinentbaeareReseamh Reportsand Letters. 8. Research Reports ?descn'be the results of original reseuch of exceptional importance.? Exhibit 1 atp. 1. Regular Research Reports are limited to 6journal pages (49,000 characters). Exhibit 2 at p. (excerpt ?'om By contrut, Letters ?are brief online that allow readers to constructively address a difference of opinion with authors of a meat PNAS article.? Exhibit 1 at pp.1-2. thepublished Reseuch Reporton (2)notbelongerthan 500m; and (3) cite no more than 10 references. Exhibit 1 at p.2. 9. On December 8, 2015, NAS published in PNAS an article authored by Dr. Jacobson (alongwith 3 co-authors) entitledlow-costsohm'on lothegn?dreliabiliryproblan m?th 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for all purposes (hereinafter, the ?Jacobson Article?) (Exhibit 3). Dr. Jacobson and his co-authors are sometimes referred to herein as the ?Jacobson Authors.? The Jacobson Article posits tint a large?scale U.S. tramition otherenergysomces, particularlycoal, oil, andnatural gas, without theneed fornuclearpower, fossil fuels with carbon capture, orbiofuels, while enabling supply to match danand on the grid. The Jacobson Article described ?wants of original resesrch of exceptional importance,? and thaefone constituted a ?Research qut? under the NAS guidelines for publications in PNAS. In fact, in 2016, PNAS awarded the Jacobson Article a Cozzarelli Prize, given to only 6 out ofabout16,000 papers submitted to thejoumsl each year, for ?outstanding scienti?c excellaice and on'ginality.? 10. On Febmary 29, 2016, Dr. Clack telephoned Dr. Jacobson to discuss some aspects ofthe Jacobson Article about which Dr. Clack had questions. That same day, Dr. Jacobson followed up their telephone conversation with an email (Exhibit 4) in which Dr. Jacobson explained to Dr. Clack that the Jacobson Article had made the following assumption containing increasing the hydropower maximum discharge rate while keeping the annual hydropoweremrgyoutputcomtant: constant (as stated in Footnote4 ofTable 8.2 ofthe paper). . . .For the study, we assumed that tranaformersinthehydro atationstherebyincreasing thediachargerate [the ?Amunptionm. Exhibit4. Overthenextcoupleofdays, Dr. ClackandDr. Jacobsonoontinuedtodiscuaathe Assumption. In one particular response to Dr. Jacobean on Mach 2, 2016, Dr. Clack stated, am not disagreeing with the poembilitythat it can bedone with CSP and hydro, etc., ljust think the costs are skewed quite badly by gating all this free dispatchable power.? Exhibit 5 atp. 2. to the hydropower tin'bines, and concluded it was ?relatively minor.? Exhibit 4 at p.l. 11. Dr.Claek, problems existed with the output, submitted an article to NAS for publication in PNAS. This article, Evaluation of a proposal reliable power with 100% Mud. water. and solar, PNAS, 2017 (?Clack Article?) was authored by Dr. Clack andtwentyalleged Dr.,Clackandtheco- Authors.? Atmtimepriortothe anails?'omFebruary29toMarch2, 2016. 12. On February 27, 2017, eight months a?erthe Clack Article was initially submitted to PNAS for publication, Etta Kavanangh (?Ma Kavanaugh?), an editorial manager of PNAS, noti?ed Dr. Jacobson by ermil about Dr. Clack?s mbmiasion, which Ms. Kevanaugh deccdbedto Dr. [Jacobson Article].? Exhibit 6. In her email, Ma advised Dr. Jacobson that the Clack Article had been accepted for publication and inquired whetha' Dr. Jacob-on would like to ?submit a Exhibit?. Ms. WW theunedited Februaryzo, 2017 versionoftheClackArticleto heremailto Dr. Jacoboon. Exhibit 7. Dr. Jaeobeon?a Warning. to NAS Not To 9% Article 13. After Dr. Jacobson and his co-authors received Ms. Kavanaugh?a February 27, responded by entails on February 27 and 28, 2017. In an a February 28, 2017 email (the tmismittal ernnilis attachedasExhibit 16), Dr. Jacobson statements misluding staternarts. 14. On March 2, 2017, Daniel the deputy executive editor of editorial policy deparunent responded to Dr. Jacobson and informed him that to properly addmhiaconcems, Jacobson?a list. Exhibit 8. Mr. Selsbury epoci?callyeought permission from Dr. Jacobson to shareDr. Jacoboon?s February 28,2017 amil attachmalt withtheClack Authors. 15. statemmtund ?ve misleading statements. Exhibit 8. Dr. Jacobson didmorethangive Mr. Jacobson'requatd that Mr. Salsburydoso. Exhibit 8. Lnthatsameemail, Dr. Jacobson Despite Mr. Salsbury?s March 2, 2017 mail statingthat NAS would forward Dr. Jacobson?s requestforcon'ectiontoallCIack Authors, NAS failodtodoso,andNAS subseqwitly overaceingtheClackAnicle. 16. ?accqited version of the article?ornClacketal.? Exhibit 17(u'msmittal email). This modi?ed version wasdi??elmt?mntheFebruary 20,2017 version only inthatitcontained someminor editorial correctionsandtext changesandacon?ict of interest disclosure (albeit ?ve corrections requested by Dr. Jacobson. l7. OnMay 5,2017,inthefaceofNAS's decisiontopublishthetmconected version of the Clack Article in PNAS, Dr. Jacobson again contacted Mr. Salabury and sent yet line. Exhibit 9. Mr. Salsbury replied to Dr. Jacobson samcday, stating. ?We manmcn'pt. Milne." See 5/5/17 Salsbm'y ?nail to Jacobson (attached hereto as Exhibit 10) (anphasis added). ThuaforMmtIasNAS led Dr. Jacobsontobelievetl'iatNAShad forwardedhis list whmin?lctithadnot. Clack Article that it was ?Edited by 8.1.. Tm,? Dr. Tm'ner was the 80m Member who did not supply the Clack Authors with the correction request. 18. On May 9, 2017, PNAS forwarded to Dr. Jacobson a revised version of the Clack Article after the authors had read Dr. Jacobson?s line-by-line comments (which as Mr. Salsburynotedinhis May 5, 2017 email May 5, 2017). On June 19, 2017, NAS published (in the on-line edition of PNAS) the version of the Clack Article emailed to Dr. Jacobson on May 9, 2017. Exhibit 11. The published version ofthe Clack Article contained almost all ofthe falsehoods and misrepresattations that It number of Dr. Jacohm?s thirty-?ve cements, leaving most of the false and misleading statements, including the three most egregious ones (discussed in?a at 1140-64) unchanged. A version isattachedhereto as Exlubit 12. 19. criteria for either a Research Report or Letter and should not have been published. This was not a mere technical non-compliance The decision by NAS to publish the Clack Paper in PNAS has had grave rami?cations for Dr. Jacobson. 20. As noted above, NAS has established publication policies that pvem the submission, review and acceptance of papers for publication in PNAS as well as resolution of chcralof these policies Were not followed in ofthe Clad: Article, ranking in signi?cant 21. importance. Exhibitlan. 22. Report? Notonly didnoneoftheClack paforming research on another scienti?c study, until three weeks after publication of the Clock PNAS article.? Exhibit 1 atp. (dambinga?ettu?). In fact, Professor Robert Email: of Cornell University, ancxpat and Editor-in-Chicf of the journal, (Bxhibitl3): If published at all, should 1:1ch to commait withoppornmity to rquy.? 23. differences of scienti?c opinion byassertingmaterially false facts. Based on its clear policy, NAS 24. Exhibit 1 atp. 2. TheClackArticle failedtomeetthesecriten's. 500 words in length. The article itselfis six pages long. single-3pm and includes a13-pege, single-spaced Supporting lnformstion, which is not allowed with a Letter. With 27 citations in the main text alone, the Clock Article far exceeds the Ill-citation limit for a Letter. Finally, the Clack Article was not submitted for review until June 26, 2016. missing the six-month deadline for letter submissions by almost three weeks. Even had overlooked the lateness of the Clack admission, it should not live ignored the remaining criteria for Letter submissions. 25. NAS, in accqiting the Clark Article for publication in PNAS, also violated its own policy governing ?Authorship must be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work.? Exhibit 14 at p.3. 26. The ?Author contributions? section of the published Clack Article admits that only three (Dr. Clack, Dr. Ken Caldiera, and Dr. Steffen A. Qvist) out of twenty-one named authorsdesigmd, 18 eo-authors and belief, the remaining eighteen authors did not ?contribute substantially" to the work, but Indeed,st20, 2017 New York article notes that while Dr. Jacobson published his article with ?three co-authors,? the Clack Article was by a ?group of 21 prominent scholars, including physicists and engineers, lO climate scientists and Similarly, a June 23, 2017 Scienti?c American article is entitled, ?Landmark 100 Percent Renewable Energy Study Flawed, Say 21 Leading Experts.? A June 19, 2017 article in GreenTecb Mafia refer: to a?battalion offellow energy recumbent? 27. ThefactthatNAS pamittedtheClack Articletolistall twenty-oneco?authon, ?conuibmed substantially? to the work is another violation by NAS of its own policy for PNAS publications. The policy violation resulted in the arti?cial in?ation of the credibility of the Clack Article?s attack on Dr. Jacobson, his coauthors, and the Jacobson Article, and drastically false information about the Jacobson Article. 28. The inclusion of twenty-one coauthors on the initial submission to NAS also arti?cially theeyes ofthetwo refereeswhoreviewedthe Article ?rstsent to Dr. Jacobson contained no ?Author Contribution" section, indicating that the referees were not even in?urmed thatonlytin'eeauthors, not twenty-one, performedreaeamh forthepaper. 29. NAS, in awepting the Clack Article for publication in PNAS, also violated its own policy governing con?ict of interim disclosures. NAS consida'ed the Clack Article for publication, andallowed disclosure ofcon?ict ofintereat. As noted above, on February 27, 2107, NAS emailed Dr. Jacobsonacopyoftheveraion version of the Clack Article (Exhibit No. 7) did not contain any con?ict of interest statement nor an ?Author contribution? statement The lack of any con?ict of interest statement was one 11 of Dr. Jacobson?s several objecn'ons to decision to accept the article for publication in PNAS. Jaeobson?sobjectiorathatNAS nequestedthe Clack Authors to provide a con?ict ofintelest statement. 30. The con?ict ofinterest Wt that Dr. Clack and his co-authors provided was insumcient because some authors did not disclose or fully disclose ?any association that poses .?as required. Breakthrough Institute, a nuclear advocacy group, since 2012. This is relevant because the Clack Article advocates for a broad range of may opdons, speci?cally including nuclw power, and claims it is one technology that should have beat included in the Jacobson Article that was intentionally not. 31. Similarly, although Dr. James Sweeney (listed as a co?author of the Clack Article) admitted receiving funding ?'om Exxon and other fossil fuel interests, the con?ict of interest statement fails to disclose that Dr. Sweeney has been an Institutional Advisory Board Member ofThe Communications Institute, a that group ofExxon Mobil and that, according to his biographical sketch on Stanford?s website, he has ?served as an expert witness in energy lidsa?ousinnatmalgasoil, aridertergyindustries . . failstodisclosethatDr. advocacy for fossil fuels which is evidenced, for example, in a video posted on YouTube on November 2, 2016, in which Dr. Swemey states: ?If we were to give up on the fossil fuels, we give up on both the economy mid security very quickly.? 32. Moainiponmtofthethreeoutonl authorswho admittoperformingreseamh 12 and 32 seconds into the February 23, 2016 video at article, whue he LongandothaClack Authors, he is an ardent advocate for nuclear power, which the Jacobson Article speci?cally interest that clearly shows bias, speaks to the motivation of some of the Clack Authors, and was notdisclom Article. As areault, manynews organizations wrote stories leading readers to believe that the Clack Article was written solely by unbiased scholars. 33. Thin, NAS allowed the Clack Article to be publidred in PNAS even though the article?s con?ict of interest statement was woefully insuf?cient. In addition, the con?ict of interest statanart was provided too late only after peer review. Had the referees of the Clack Article known the full extmt of con?icts of interest of many Clack Authors, as admitted in the con?ict of interest statement provided a?u' peer-review and indicated by additional con?icts providedherebutnotdisclosed, aResearch Report due to bias. Dr. Jacobson ala?ted Etta Kavmagh of NAS by email on February 27, 2017 that Dr. Clack and his co-authors had violated the con?icts ofintereet policy. Exhibit 15 at pl. 34. The damage from allowing the Clack Article to be published without full thaeatter continues to accrue 35. NAS, in accepting the Clark Article for publication in PNAS, also egregioualy violated its own policy requiring that all work submitted for publication ?be free of fabrication, 13 falsi?cation, and plagiarism as de?ned by the US O?oe of Research Integrity.? This policy violation is described below. Moreover, NAS accepted the Clack Article for publicdion even appropriateprocess policy ?or PNAS publications. For example, it was not until three weeks after publication of whether their claims about modeling errors were correct, and the model output indicates clearly their claims were not correct. 36. In addition to promulgating its own publication standards and policies for PNAS, NAS is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics Through membership, COPE policies also govern PNAS, which states on its own website is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and subsa'ibes to its principles.? COPE standards set forth guidelines for its members, including the duty to investigate allegations of fabrication. Despite a requirement to invatigate every single claim of fabrication both before publication mama .pda and a?er publication mod; of an article, there is no indication that NAS made any e?'ort to investigate a single one of Dr. Jacobson?s assertions of ?brication in the Clack Article either before or after publication. To the contrary, (I) a PNAS Board Memberrefused even to inves?gatqcon'ect, foroorrection 35 false orhighly misleading statarienta sent to PNAS on Felluary 28, 2017 and March 2, 2017 (Exhibit 8), and (2) the editorial board refused to investigate these same claims, submitted again on May S, 2017 (Exhibit 9), instead merely sending than to the Clack Author: to consider. l4 Time, to Dr. Jacobaon?a knowledge, therewasno e?xtbyany editor toinveatigate Article, as required under COPE. 37. On February28 and MarchZ, 2017, Dr. Jacobeon providedthe PNAS editorial board with Article. Exhibits 8, 16. 38. On May 4, 2017, Mr. Salabury transmitted the accepted version ofthe Clack Article to Dr. Jacobson. Exhibit 17. Upon reviewing it, Dr. Jacobson found that none of the falsehoods and misleading statements in the Clack Article, which he had pointed out in his lnthefaceofNAS'sapparent ArticletobepubliahedinPNAS, Dr. Jacobsontriedyetagainto warn NAS ofthe OnMayS, 2017, Dr. Jacobson emailed to Mr. Salsbury a new docmnent, pointingoutthe errors in the Clack Article line-by?line. Exhibit 9. The contents of Exhibit 9 are incorporated haein by reference a iffully set forth herein. 39. On May 9, 2017, PNAS forwarded to Dr. Jacobson a reviaed version of the Clack Article after the authors had read Dr. Jacobson?s lineoby-line comments. The version ofthe Clack Article emailed to Dr. Jacobson on May9, 2017 mimic onlysome changes in reapenaeto Dr. Jacobson?s thirty-?ve comments, leaving the primary false and misleading statements, particularly false claims of model error, unchanged. NAS published this May 9, 2017 version (Exhibit l1) ofthe Clack Article in PNAS, a version that contained most ofthe IS beenalerted by Dr. Jacobson. were particuhrlyeu'egious Major Fabehoorb And Misleading 40. The Clack Article, which NAS agreed to publish in PNAS over Dr. lacobaon?s objections, contained numerous factually false and misleading statanents. Among the most damaging falsehoods is the Clack Article?s claim that the Jacobson Article contains several modeling errors that ??'nvalidate the results in the studies, pam'cularly with respect to the amount of hydropower available . . Exhibit 11 at p. 3 (Clack Atticle at 6724). Baaeleas allegations of modeling errors can be found throughout the Clack Article. These allegations are relevant andparticularlydamngingto Dr. Jacobson whoeemainrecearchwork ison thedevelopment and application of numerical computer models. 41. Consistent with the editorial and publication policies established by NAS for PNASsubmissionsDr. Clack Article (otherthan writingthepaper), couldhave, insteadofwritinga Research Report, writtai a Letta for publication in PNAS merely naming differences in opinion about, for example, whether it was practical or costly to install large numbers of additional However,rather frornDr. falsestatemamofmataial l6 publication. Dr. Clack refused to correct the statements, and NAS, in particular, Editor Dr. B.L. Turner and Editor-in?Chief, Dr. lnder Vanna, agreed to publish the Clack Article with evidence allegations of fabrication and falsi?cation be investigated, causing signi?cant damage to the reputations of the Jacobson Authors and, in particular, Dr. Jacobson. There are three particularly egregious false statements. 42. Authors isthatTable 1 of lnfact,all numbersinTable areamge values. The Clack Authors use false dwacterintion to invent non-eaistart additional problems with the Jacobson Article. NAS was informed three times (February 28, 2017, March 2, 2017, and May 5, 2017) ofthis mischaracterizationand theneed for a correction by theClack Authors. The Clack Authors received one ofthese correction requests on May 5, 2017, priorto publication. Exhibit 10. NAS, however, did not require the Clack Authors to make this correction, nor did NAS itself investigate the allegation of false information, and the Clack Asamult, NAS andDr. Clack knowingly allowed the false claim to be published This is a basic error by Dr. Clack and NAS that was easily correctable, yet despite three waning: by Dr. Jacobson before publication and despite Dr. Jacobson?s requests for retraction of the Clack Article after publication, NAS, Dr. Turner, and Dr. Verma knowingly and intentionally refused to require correction of this error 43. More speci?cally, the Clack Article asserts the following alleged modeling error. Similarly, as detailed in SI Appendix [to the Clack Article], section 81.2, the total amount of load labeled as ?exible in the ?gures of [the Jacobson Article] is 17 tabulardata In fact, the?exibleload usedby LOADMATCH ismorethan double the maximum poasible value from table 1 of [the onbson Article]. The maximum possible ?om table 1 of[the Jacobson Article] is given as 1,064.16 GW, whereas ?gure 3 of[the Jacobson Article] shows that ?exible load (in grem)usedup to 1,944 GW (on day 912.6). Indeed, inall the ?guresin [the Jacobson Am'cle] that show ?exible load. the restrictions enmnerated in table 1 of [the Jacobson Article] are not satis?ed. Exhibit 11 (Clack Article at p. 6724). In fact, the 1,064.16 GW from Table 1 of the load. Dr. Clackandhis co-authors as their concomitant conclusion that it was a modeling error. Even after Dr. Clack was noti?ed ofits falsehood, he knowingly refused to correct it. 44. Article. Exhibit 7 (Feb. 2017 dra? Clack Article at Dr. Jacobson?s Febrqu 28, 2017 reply to PNAS documenting and requesting correction of the thirty errors and ?ve misrepresentations, speci?cally addressed this modeling error claim under Item No.17: False. This statemmt indicates the failure ofa single one onI co-authors to read carefully even past the ?rst page ofJaeobson et al. (2015b), who they are criticizing. As clearly stated on the second page (15,061) of Jacobson et al. (2015b), Table 1 is an armual-avu'age load, not a maximum load. As also clearly stated on page 15,061, the number of heatingand coolingdegeedays, respectively, each year. Thus, the ?exible load l. Figure3 isperfectly?ne. whichthe authors of the commentary could easily have requested but failed to do so. Exhibit 8 at pp. 9?10. 45. Similarly, in his May 5, 2017 request for a retraction, Dr. Jacobson, replying line?by?linetotheMay4, 2017veraion follows: 18 False. As clearly stated on the second page of [the Jacobson Article], p.15,061) Table 1 is an anmial-average load, not a maximum load. As also clearly stated on page 15,061, the annual heating and cooling loads are distributcdevuy30 cooling degreedaya, respectively, eachyear. Thuathe?exibleloadatanymoment 1. Exhibit 9 at p.11. 46. The speci?c language ?rm the Jacobson Article to which Dr. Jacobson was re?ning reads: The 2050 annual cooling and heating loads (Table 1) are distributed in LOADMATCH each 30-3 time step each month of2050-2055 in proportion to the number ofcooling~ and heating-degree days, respectively, each month averaged ova the United States ?om 1949 to 2011. Exhibit 3 (Jacobson Article at p. 15061). 47. Thus, the ?exible 10? at any moment may be higher or lower than the average load in Table 1. Figure 3 shows the instantaneous load, and the instantaneous Ioad, averaged over a year, matches the annual average load given in Table 1. Accordingly, me ?gure in the Jacobson Article is accurate. The LOADMATCH code also contains this information, and Dr. Clack could have requested output from Dr. Jacobson prior'to publication, but he did not. Instead, Dr. Clack waited until threeweeks Article waspublishedbefmehe requested output data from the Jacobson Article model. Moreover, this late request indicates that the Clack Article?s authors failed to conduct the due diligence required of professional researchers paforming research, particularly when criticizing another study. Notwithstanding thefactthattheJacobson Article 1 areavcrage valuesand nowha?estateatheyaremaximmn values, ofpublication as due diligence requires, they could not possibly have made this mistake. l9 48. Speci?cally, on July 1 1, 2017, the day a?er Dr. Clack requested the Jacobean Article model output (and three weeks a?cr publication of the Clack Article), Dr. Jacobson earn to Dr. Clack (copyingDr. Vermaaner. Salsbury) (Exhibit 18 at pp. 4-5): 2015paperitself. Speci?cally, that is ?exible or coupled with TBS storage is 46449.0718411728 Dividing by the number of hours of simuluion (52547.9874993792 hours) gives the average load that is ?exible or coupled with storage as 0.883936265717532 TW (or ~884 OW), which is within mundo?'aror of the 884.03 GW at the bottom of Column 5 of Table of our 2015 PNAS paper. Aswch,the884.03 GWinColurnnSofTable isanAVERAGEvalue,nota maximum value. Similarly, the sum, overthe30-aecond time series for6 years, Dividing this by the aumba of hours of simulation gives GW),whichisalsowithin mundofferror ofthe 180.2 GWinthebottomofColtm6ofTable l),indicatingagainthat the values in Table areavesage values, not maximum values. in fact, all loadsin Table] loadanotmaximmnloada. So,tosurn clearly,thevaluea in'l?able areaverageloadgandthaeis nothing 49. Asexplained above, Dr. Clack falsely claimedthelacobaon Articlecontained a time, notamaximum number,andthis was Jacobson toNASandtoDr. Clack. 20 July 11, 2017 (Exhibit 18) that contained the complete explanation ofthe data provided to Dr. ClackwithregardtoTable l,yetre?aaedtoretracttheC1ack Article. lnatead,NAS notonly published the Clack Article in PNAS knowing that this egregious and damaging false claim existed, but has kept the Clack Article available to the public through the on-line version of PNAS knowing that the intentionally false claim exists in the Clack Article. The false claim in the Clack Article that Dr. Jacobson and his co-authora committed a ?Modeling Farm? is partimlarlyharm?il anddamagingtoDr. computer modding 50. The second particularly egregious materially false statement intentionally made bytheClack hydropower assumption, and their resulting assertion of a ?Modeling Error? rather than acknowledging the Speci?cally, in the published Clack Article, the Clack Authors assert, ?111i: anotherexplanation forthelarge amounts Exhibit 11 atp. 8(Supporting Information at Dr. Clack and his co-anthora are referring to the fact that several ?gures in the Jacobson Article show much higher hydropower discharge rates than indicated by the installed capacity of hydropower (which always equals the maximum possible annual- averaged discharge rate) as givui in Table 82 of the Jacobson Article. 51. However, Dr. Clackknewtherewae and received a written reply on February 29, 2016, See Exhibit 4 (2/29/16 Jacobeon ?nail to Clack). The February 29, 2016 mail was followed up with along email exchange over several days. Speci?cally, Dr. Clack was informed as follows by Dr. Jacobson on February 29, 2016: 21 [looked into the issue of the high disehargerateof conventional hydro, and it additional cost for turbines/generators; however, the additional costs are relativelyminorincomparison with othercostsas shownhere. Exhibit4atp. 1. Havingbcen table in questionalmost Dr. Clack?sstatementintheClack Article that ?we hope there is another explanation? is intentionally misleading. 52. To make matters worse, NAS, Dr. Venus, and Dr. Tumerknew ?'om Dr. acobson?s with the PNAS editorial board that Dr. Jacobson explained to Dr. high discharge rate of hydropower in the ?gures was not a modeling error at all but at intentional assumption. See Exhibits 4, 19, 20. There were no mathematical or computational arms in any of the underlying models. Rather, Dr. Jacobson and his co-authors madean intentional modelingassumption ofincreasingthemaximum possible dischargerateof tha by adding turbines to existing dams while keeping the annual average hydropower output (thus water flow) constant. Theincrease in themaximum hydropowerdischargerate is seen in Figures 2b, 84b, and 85b of the Jacobson Article Holding the annual hydro power (thus energy) supply constant is stated explicitly in Footnote 4 of Table 82 of the Jacobson Article, and shown clearly from the 6-year hydropower output in Table 2 (2413 Nb). which corresponds exactly to the 6-year (72-month) summed output shown in Figure 2b ofthe Jacobson Article. What was not clear in words from the article and from Table 82 of the paper 2b. 54b. existing dams. However, this was explained clearly to Dr. Clack on February 29, 2016, upon his request for clari?cation. and NAS multiple timea. prior'to and a?a'publica?on oftheCle?Article. 53. costs are skewedquite badly by this freedispatdrable power.? Exhibit 5 (3/2/16 was technically possible; his only diagreementwaswithcost. As such, insteadof Dr. Clack Article had neglected to includethecostof adding turbines and believed the cost was low with the cost~ the urthors ofthe Clack Article intentionally made the following material false claiminthe Captionto FigureloftheClackArticle,?Fig. Jacobson ArticleD GW despitethefact majorerrorintheiranalysis.? 54. Errors? in the main text of the Clack Article, and claimed they ?hope there is another 23 Wine? 55. Indoannents 28, 2017,Mareh2, 2017,undMay 5, See Exhibits 8,9,16, assertion of WonintheClack Article. Despite Dr. onbson?s requests?heonlydoctment NAS senttotheClackAuthors was DrJaooM?s May5,2017?wment. Exhibit 10. The intentionally and knowingly claimed the Jacobson Authors committed a?modeling error,? even goingsofatutopretmdmey were unaware of Dr. Jeooheon?s explmetion bysta?nginthe anothaexplamtion formelnrgeunounts of hydropower output depictedintheae?gmee.? Exhibit ll atp. 56. Despite Dr. (Jack's full knowledge of Dr. ?rstpege, ?Date availableuponmqueet (from his twenty co-unhoneveruked Dr. Jacobson foreitherdatnorclari?ation Chok?s February29-Mmh publication of the Clack ArticlethatDr.Clackrequeued model. Seesupra 1135.47.48. 24 multiple ways that the hydrOpower output shown in the Figures in the Jacobson Article were exactly consistent with the explanation Dr. Jacobson had provided prior to publication to Dr. Clack was personally aware of the Jacobson Article hydropower assumption and that data within the Jacobson Article (Figure 2b and Table 2) indicated no mathematical or computational of publication as due diligence requires, they could not possibly have made the intentionally erroneous claim that this assumption represented a ?Modeling Error? in the Jacobson Article. 57. During their February 29, 2016 telephone conversation and follow-up email corremondence, Dr. Clack asked Dr. Jacobson for clari?cations about the hydro including about costs, and Dr. Jacobson gave the clari?cations and explanations requested. Dr. Clack not only ignored what Dr. Jacobson told him about the underlying assumptions, the Clack Article fails to acknowledge the assimption and explanations. Further, Dr. Clack amrmatively denied, in aJuneZO, 2017 Twitterpostthatthelacobson Amhorshadevenmadethis Dr. amodelingerror. Speci?cally, Dr. Clackstatedinhistwitterpoat, ?Itisamistake. lfwas an assumpt. for review would have been rejected straight away. Also, all the evidence in their papersuggestmiatake.? Dr. Clackrnadethisfalse hydropoweroutput data. which he subsequently requeaed by email 21 days late" (and 22 days after publication of the Clack Article), on July 10, 2017 (Exhibit 21). Further, he made this falsestatementwithfull February 29, 2016 (Exhibit 4). 25 58. time series is supported by Figure 2b and Table 2 oftho Jacobson Article, and indepeudaitly by the spreadsheet at hmcomson/Ertidls/t! The assumption that Dr. aoobwn and output (thus no increue in the annual average ?ow rate or hydropower energy output), but that annual output stayed the same. 59. Figure 2b of the Jacobson Article shows the full six-year hydropower time sales. Thespreadsheet atthelinkinthe hydropower output from that Figure is 2413.37 and the annual average is 402.32 TWh/yr. The six- yeartotal isoxactly consistent withthe 2413 TWhreported inTable2 ofthc Jacobson Article, and both numbers oversix yearsandtho402.32 TWh/year reported inthe spreadsheet forthesametimeseries, butat 1-hour time resolution. Thus, all three data points show that: the model of the Jacobson Article consa'ved annually (b)energywasreportedcorrectly in Table 2 of the Jacobson Article; (0) the energy times series in the average was 2b ofthe article; theena?gytime seriesat 1-hourraolution was and l-hourtime 26 60. computational model error dapite the Clack Article?s false claim to the contrary. Moreover, Dr. Clackhadbeeninformed ofthecorrect mumtionascarlyasl-?ebruary 29, 2016. Fm?tha, all additional authors of the Clack Article were informed of this through Dr. Jacobson's line-by- line ruponse, which NAS sentto Dr. Clack and his (ac-authors on May 5, 2017. Exhibit 10. TheeditorialboardofPNAS wasinformedbyemail(and attaclnnent)onFebruary28,2017 (Exhibit 16) andMarch 2,2017 again on May 25 (Exhibit 22), June 20 (Exhibit 19) and June 26, 2017 (Exhibit 20). Further, onJuly 11, 2017, Dr. Vermaand Mr. Salsbury werecopied onanemail to Dr. Clack (Exhibit Clackhadrequeebedmodelom fromDr. Jacobson. The from the data, supplied to Dr. Clack and publicly available at the website listed above in Paragaph 58, made. 61. The Clack Authors wue informed of the two aforementioned false claims about Jacobson Article modeling arors prior to publication of their article but refused to withdraw theirclaims. NAS notmake, Article, lettingstand the falaeclaims. 62. by Dr. Jacobson only after publication of the Clack Article. Upon discovering this additional false claim, Dr. Jacobson informedbothNAS and Dr. Clack, yetneithertookany corrective action. NAS was informed by letteron August 1, 2017 (Exhibit 23) (8/21/17 letter ?orn counsel 27 to Dr. Inder Verma, PNAS editor-in-chief, with enclosure). Dr. Clack was informed through social 19, 2017 (the day of the Clack Article publication online), Dr. Clack posted Figure 3 of the Clack Article on 43%upon historical? Exhibit 24. Dr. Jacobson replied to Dr. Clack by Twitter the same day, ?You compare our annual CanadiH-US hydro to your US only. Apples v. oranges Our gen includes Canada hydro P.2102 EES paper 2015.? Exhibit 24. Despite his full knowledge of the error in Figure3 oftheClack Article, Dr. ClackpostedonTwitterFigur'e3 asecondtime,a?er receiving the correction from Dr. Jacobson, on July 26, 2017 stating, from hydroelectricity grows 43.5% compared with annual avenge over last 15 years.? Exhibit 25. Thus, Dr. Clack intentionally posted Figure 3 from the Clack Article a second time knowing that it misled the public by comparing U.S.-only hydropower energy output data with US. plus imported Canadian hydropower energy output from the Jacobson Article. This indicates malice toward Dr. Jacobmn. 63. Figure 3 of the Clack Article is an entirely erroneous comparison of US. hydroelectric power data with data in the Jacobson Article that includes the total Canadian imported hydropower out of 402.2 of total hydrOpower, the Clack Authors misled readers into thinking the Jacobson Authors assumed an unreasonably high mutually-averaged hydropower output. 64. Dr. Figure3 toclaim (in Section 82.5 of the Clack Article?s Supporting Information) that Dr. Jacobson and his WW8 at 28 p.13) and(onpageo725 andintheFigure3 captionoftheClackArticle) ?13%lrigierthanthe 25-yearhistoric maximum.? Exhibit 11 atp. 4. TheClaekArticlethm ?rrtherstates in Supporting Information Section 82.5, ?Since the authors of [the Jacobson Article] amume an increase of 43% above historical avenge values (see our Fig. 3) then Hoover Dam must produce 43% more electricity for a total of 6.01 Exhibit 11 at p. 13. However, of the 402.5 TWh/year hydropowcr output ?rm the Jacobson Article shown in the Clack Article?s Dr. the 45 TWh/year from 402.2 TWh/year to obtain 357.2 TWyear annual average US. hydropower output horn the Jacobson Article. 357.2 TWh/year is only 0.2% different ?om the historic peak U.S. hydropower annual output of 356.5 as reported in the Clack Article, not 13% higher. lfthe Clack Authors had investigated the source ofthe Jacobson Article numbers that the Clack Authors used in Figure 3 oftheirpeper, asduediligencereqmres, the Clack Authors would not have made this egregious error. Dr. acobaol?a for 65. Despite Dr. publication of the Clack Article because of its numerous false and misleading statements and other violations of PNAS editorial policies, and without investigating a single alleged falsi?cation or fabrication in the Clack Article. as required under its Marmot to COPE, NAS published the Clack Article in the on-line edition of PNAS on June 19, 2017. 66. On June 13, 2017, Dr. Jacobson emailed Mr. Salsbury and stated, ?Forthe record, I still consider the Clack et al. article libelous and oppose its publication.? Exhibit 26 at p.l. On June 20, 2017, Dr. Jacobson emailed Mr. Salabury requesting that the Clack Article be reuacted b? on the intentionally false information it contained. Exhibit 19. On June 21, 29 2017 (Exhibit 27) and June 26, 2017 (Exhibit 20), Dr. Jacobson ngnin mquerted NAS to taunt the Clock Article from PNAS. On July 7, 2017, Dr. Jacobson?s counsel wroteto Dr. lnder Velma, the to demand a retraaion On July ll, 2017, Dr. Jacobon wrotetoDr.Clack,copyingDr. Verrnn, Mr. Salsbury,andthePNAS editorialstn?'mxhibit 18), the Jacobson Article (dismissed at length in this Complaint) wae false. 67. OnAugust 1,2017, undersigned counsel forDr. incobsonlgainwmteto Dr. falsestatementinthe Clark Article. See 162; Exhibit 23. The August 1, 2017 letter also noti?ed Dr. Vet-ma Dr. Jacobson Article contained modeling ?rots. 68. Todate,NAShn the claims of fnlsi?cction and ?bricetion, as required under COPE. To date, Dr. Clock and his co-nuthors have failed and refused to voluntarily withdraw the Clack Article. 69. Although NAS publisheda BOO-word on-line ?W?'ornDr. Jacobson publicntion of Articlenorcould itaddressthethen?mknown errorinFigure3 of the ClockArticle. 70. Thepublication of cause, dermgetoDchcohaon?srepmntion. audience. Moreover, Dr. David G. Victor and Dr. Ken Caldeim, two of Dr. Clack?s coauthors, 30 requested that the University ofCalifornis and the Cunegie Institution ofSciaice, respectivdy, 'I'hosepreesrelessea ?ntherincreasedtheoovmge given to the Clack Article?s falsely based criticisms and analysis ofthe Jacobson Article. A ?urry ofnews articles, all critical ofDr. Jacobson and his co-authors despite the avsilsbility ofs word-limited published response by Dr. Jacobson, we published on-line, beginning immediately s?a the Clock Article was published electronically on June 19, 2017. A list of thoseinitial articlesissttachedasExhibit 28. include: June 24, 2017, National Review, ?Appalling Delusion of 100% Renewebles, National Academy of Science refutes Mark Jacobson?s dream that our economy can run exclusively on ?green? energy.? June 26, 2017, 77w Energy Collective, ?The Case for 100% Renewsbles Rests on a June 22, 2017, Manhattan Contrarian, ?PeOple are Starting to Catch On To the 100% Ruiewsble Energy" Scam? June 22, 2017, Energy In Depth, ?Study Destroys ?Tooth Fairy? Used by Activists to Try to Justify Banning Fucking.? June 19, 2017, MIT Technoloy Review, Scientists Sharply Rebut In?uaitisl Renewable- Energy Plan? (0 June 26, 2017, Forbes, ?Debunking the Unscienti?c Fantasy of 100% Renewsbles? (3) June 20, 2017, New York Tbnes, ?Fisticuffs Over the Route to Clean-Energy Future? (h)1une 23, 2017, Scienti?c American, ?Landmark 100 Percent Renewable Energy Study Flawed, Say 21 Leading Experts? June 19, 2017, GreeuTeclt Media, ?100% Ratewables Plan Has ?Signi?cent Shortcomings,? Say Climate and Energy Experts.? 71. Many of these articles, including those by the New York Times, Forbes, Scienti?c American, The MIT Technology Review, The Energy Collective, Enemy In inth, Review,andGreenTech Medisamongothers, 31 repeated the Clack Article intentionally false written claim (in the Clack Article) that the Jacobson Article contained ?modeling arms.? In fact, The New York Times evai stated: The conclusion cfthe critique is damning? Professor Jacobmn "committed Ourpaper is prettydevastating.? said Varun Sivaram from the Council on Foreign Relations, a co-author of the new critique. 72. authors look like poor, sloppy. incompetent. and clueless researchers when, in fact, thce wee no ?Modeling Errors? made in their study. Dr. Jacobson has acknowledged that the Jacobson Article was not clear in the actual text, including Table 82, about the hydropower assumption Clack Authors The omission ofadditional turbine cost, which was subsequently calculated as ofthc overall cost ofenergy, had no impact on the conclusions ofthe Jacobson Article study. Further, the Clack Authors had knowledge about the Jacobson Article hydropower assumption while writing their critique, yet intentionally pretended it did not exist, going so far as to intentionally deny their knowledge of its existence in their critique. They manipulated the information to make it look like the Jacobson Authors had made serious errors when they had full knowledgeoftheuuth. caused additional personal embarrassment For example, his children and fame read by chance some of the published accounts in the press. Two of the students who have since graduated but who worked on the Jacobson Article wee both Wt. 73. Had NAS enforced its publication guidelines, there would have been no Clack 32 the criteria for submittingaLetter, including myandwordlimitationa. Hadtherebemno 9211111.! (Defamation?Draw) 74. 75. values in Table of theJaeohson Article were maximum values when thede full knowledge and evidencethat they were average values; that the authorsof the Clack Article were unaware of any aplanation depicted inthree Article that Jacobson Article annual hydropower output was higher than historical averages whenthe withadditional 12. Theliatof Articleidenti?ed in Exhibit12areineorporated Exhibits (especially Exhibits 4, s, 9, 1o, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26. 27)me demonstrably false and/or are meant to imply falae assertions of fact. 33 76. By submitting and agreeing to publish the Clack Article in PNAS, Dr. Clack Columbia, national and international scienti?c community audience that reads articles published in PNAS, and to the much larger additional D.C., national and international press readership. 77. The false and misleading statements in the Clack Article, identi?ed in Exhibit 12, are defamatory towards Dr. Jacobson. As explained by Dr. Jacobson in his correspondence with Dr. Clack, Dr. Vuma, Dr. Turner, Ms. stanaugh, and Mr. Salsbury, the statanaits are demonstrably false and/or are meant to imply false assertions of fact. 78. Dr. Clack knew and was informed prior to publication that many of the and alter publication, he was informed of the third of the three most egregious statements, but failed and refused to correct any statements prior to publication or after publication, to withdraw the submission of the article, or to withdraw the article a?er publication. In putiwlar, Dr. Clackwas Paragraphs 50-61), of the correct interpretation of model on February 29, 20l6. Dr. Clack ignited the explanations and clari?cations given by Dr. Jacobson and submitted an article intentionally falsely claiming that Dr. Jacobson and his co?authors had made a modeling error rather than acknowledging the Jacobson Article relied on an assumption as Dr. Jacobson hadexplained to Dr. Clackbeginningon February 29, 2106. A?erthe email ucbangein late February/early March 2016, neither Dr. Clack nor his coauthors ever asked for clari?cations model errors, as due diligence requires; Dr. Clack was again informed in May and June 2017 of claims. 79. ThatDr.C1ack is?irtherdemonstratedbyhis actions a?erpuhlication. Forexunple, heposted Article (Exhibit 25), again falsely userting that the Jacobson Article contains a modeling error. 80. By way of?rrther example ofhis malice, on August 24, 2017, Dr. Clack, in effort to discredit a completely different scienti?c article by Dr. Jacobson, published on August 23, 2017, tweeted, ?Shame the work by similar authors, on grid reliability, was discredited,? while linking to the Clack Article. Exhibit 30. On the same day (August 24, 2017), Dr. Caldeira, another Clack Author, did the same thing He stated on twitter, ?Estimated peaking needs in this study rely on discredited PNAS paper.? See pnas.org/content/l 14/26. .. @elacky007, published paper by Dr. Jacobson and colleagues. Dr. Clack?s use of the published Clack Article to purposely discredit Dr. Jacobson?s other paper demonstrates Dr. Chick?s malice and ill will toward Dr. Jacobson. 81. Dr. Clack, in publishing the statements in the Article and in his poet-publication tweets, and recklessorcallous disregard of Dr. Jacobson and his reputation. 82. Dr. Clack?s actions have proximately caused, and continue to proximately cause, damageto Dr. Jacobson. The Jacobson to ridicule and has injured him in his reputation. 35 92mg (Defamation-NAS) 83. Dr. allegations 1 through82 aboveesifsetforthfullyherein. 84. the Clack Article contained values inTablel ofthe Jacobson Article were maximum values what they had full knowledge and evidence they were average values; that the authors ofthe Clack Article were unaware the Jacobson Article when they knew ?rst hand of the munption underlying the 5m and Figure3 oftheCleckArticlethat Jacobon Articlearmual averageswhenthe ?gure compares US. data with Jacobson Article US. plus imported Canadian output. in addition to thesemostegregious falsehoods andrnisstatements, the Clack Article wasrepletewith additional numerous falsehoods and misstatemmts. The false and misleading statements in the reference as if fully set forth herein. 85. By publishing the Clack Article in PNAS, NAS knowingly and intentionally published false statements of fact and misrepresentations of fact to the District of Columbia, national and international scienti?c community audience that reads articles published in PNAS, andtothecdditionnl negativetoDr. Jeoobeonandhis co-authors following the publication of the Clack Article. 86. Although NAS, through communications received by its agents Mr. Salsbury, Editor Dr. B.L. Turner, and Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Inder Venna, knew these statements are false andalthoudiNAShas adopted a policy for PNAS requiring that published papa: ?be free of fabrication, falsi?cation, and plagiarism as de?ned by the US Of?ce of Research lntegity,? and although NAS admits it is a member of COPE and that PNAS subscribes to its principles, which include invatigating allegations of fabrication, the editorial board of PNAS never investigated the allegations broughtforth bytheJacobson Authors. Instead, NAS,havingbcenadviscd three time prior to publication, by way of Dr. Jacobson's writtm noti?cations to Mr. Salsbury, Ms. Kavanagh, Dr. Turner and Dr. Verma that the Clack Article contained incorrect statements of mata'ial fact, intentional falsi?cation ofdata, or intentional omissions, aid three times after publication by way of two letters and being copied on a third, NAS allowed the Clack Article to in Jacobson 87. The false and misleading statements in the Clack Article (Exhibit 12) are defamatory towards Dr. Jacobson As explained herein and in the attached Exhibits (especially Exhibits 4, 8, 9,10,12,15, 16, 18,19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27) the statements are demonstrably false and/or are meant to imply false assertions of fact. 88. NAS, and in puticular Mr. Salsbury, Drs. Venus, and Dr. Tums, knew the statunents were false andmisleadingpriorto or falsity by failing to investigate their truth or falsity as required by their own policies and by COPE, whose principles NAS ascribes to. Moreover, NAS failed and refused to require Dr. Clack to correct the statements prior to publication. NAS published the Clack Article in PNAS knowing that it contained numerous false and misleading statements, or in reckless disregard of 37 ,ray- ig?' and plagim'sm a de?ned by the US Of?ce ome'ch Integ'ity,? and although NAS admits investigating allegations of fabdcatim, thceditorial bound of PNAS new: invu?gued the Jacobson. 87. Bxh?aits 4, 8, 9,10,12,15,]6,18,19, 20, 22, 23, 26, mums ?demonstrably false 88. NAS,mdinpartiwlar COPE,wboacpn?ncipla NAS ascribes to. Moreover, NAS fniledandtd?medtorequim Dr. Clacktocmrect?lestmm pdortopublicution. NAS 37 provided Dr. Clock with correct explorations. However, the editors of PNAS thrwarded only themselves. 89. NAS unabated the titration whai it refused Dr. Jacobson?s damnds that it 90. Jacoboon?smWNASactedwithma?oe. publication orretnct ita?erpublieetioo alter Dr. Jacobson (directlyand through counsel) demandedthatitdoao, NAS toward Dr. Jacobson. 91. reputation. 92. emmdumgetoDrJeoobeon. life. COUNT Ill (Bunch of Contract NAS) 93. 94. Asdeeaibedherein, NAS has speci?c policies governingits acceptance of written submisdons from authors for ptiblicetion in PNAS. These policies constitute a contact 38 between NAS Jacobson Article. 95. Prior to submitting the Jacobson Article for publication in PNAS, Dr. Jacobson was aware of the publication policies of NAS which givemed mbmiasions to PNAS and which would gwemnotonlyhis Jacobson Article. Dr. Jacobson?s selection of PNAS as the jmn'nal for his article, to the exclusion of all other scienti?c jcin'nals, constituted consideration for the implied agreement of NAS that it would adhere to its publication policies for all publications. 96. NAS its contract with Dr. Jacobsonwhmit agreed to publish the Clack Article in violation of the publishing criten?a applicable to publications in PNAS. Dr. notwithstanding the fact that the article did not include a full and accurate disclosure ofcon?icts exceptional importmce,?and falai?cation and fabrication. 97. Fultha, NAS is a manber of COPE and states on the PNAS website that PNAS subscribes to its principles.? Despite a requixement to investigate every single claim of fabrication both before and alter publication of an article (see FabricatedeOdata?onOApdf and data%ZOB.pdf, respectively). NAS failed to do so. 98. $322511! (PmnhaoryEstoppel-NAS) 99. 100. The publication and editorial policies pveming submissions for publication in PNAS sutlm would be required to adhere to the same policies. NAS should have reasonably expectedtbatDr. Jacobson Articleto NAS forpublieation in PNAS, rathertban mbmittingthearticleto anyother competing sciaiti?c journal. 101. Dr. Jacobson was in fact induced by the promised publication policies, which he Article for publication in PNAS rather than any other competing scienti?c journal. Injustice to Dr. Jacobson can be avoided only by enforcement ofNAS?s promised publication policies by ordering NAS to retract the Clack Article. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Dr. Jacobson respectfully requests that this Court: in his favor; OrderNAS tonetracttheClack Article; Award Dr. Jacobson damages against NAS, to be determined at trial believed to be in excess of Ten Million Dollars AwardDr. Dr. believed to be in excess of Ten Million Award Dr. Jacobson punitive damages against Award Dr. Jacobson punitive damages against Dr. Clack; (3) Award Dr. Jacobson's costs and reasonable attorney?s fees; and (11) Award Dr. all o?nerreliefasthis Plaintiff Dr. Jacobson haeby a trial by jury on issues so tn'eble. Dated: 9/29/ 17 COHEN SBGLIAS PALLAS GREENHALL FURMAN, P.C. Paul S. Thule (Bar No. 416614) Karen 8. Km (Bar No. 414155) 1828 Street, NW Suite 705 Washington, DC. 20036 (202)466-4110 Wm Wavegiuoom Attorneys for Plaina?'Dr. Mark Z. Jacohwn 651ml 545440001 41