Home > Metablogging > Welcome to mailing list subscribers

Welcome to mailing list subscribers

May 18th, 2017

Here’s the letter I’ve sent to (I hope!) everyone who’s signed up for my mailing list.

Hi everyone,
I’ve now received more than 60 requests to join the mailing list, so I thought I would send a quick note to everyone thanking them for their requests and the kind words many of you have added. I’ll be checking for messages that bounce and I’ll also post on my blog and social media pages so that people who miss out can tell me about it.
My plan at this stage is to send the email once a week on Mondays. I’ll include links to blog posts and tweets, and I have a few other ideas to try out. I’m also open to suggestions, as long as they don’t involve too much work. If you have suggestions, go to my blog johnquiggin.com and post them there, once I’ve put this message up.
Best wishes
John

Categories: Metablogging Tags:
  1. John Ryan
    May 18th, 2017 at 15:04 | #1

    Hi John please add me

  2. Florence Howarth
    May 18th, 2017 at 15:46 | #2

    Count me in.

  3. Craig Morris
    May 18th, 2017 at 16:30 | #3

    John, you may be interested in my take on the Heard et al. paper you commented on as well: https://energytransition.org/2017/05/the-us-nuclear-camp-critiques-studies-for-100-renewables-without-reading-them/.

  4. May 18th, 2017 at 16:39 | #4

    And me.

  5. pablo
    May 18th, 2017 at 18:35 | #5

    Can you count

  6. pablo
    May 18th, 2017 at 18:36 | #6

    me in too John aaahhhhhhh

  7. John Goss
    May 18th, 2017 at 21:22 | #7

    Please add me

  8. May 18th, 2017 at 22:32 | #8

    @Craig Morris

    Craig makes an interesing point that “Heard et al. focus on peer-reviewed literature, which is usually limited to 8,000 words – quite a short space for all four criteria. Examples of simulations include Kombikraftwerk at 220 pages. The main US simulation, NREL’s Futures study from 2012 on 90% renewable power, has four volumes, the first of which (PDF) is 280 pages long.”

    So demanding peer review for book-length studies is like criticising Piketty’s Capital in the 21st century for the same lack. Or is it? Jacobson has two journal papers (here and here</a) summarising his scenarios, of 15 and 20 pages. I assume these say at some point “if you want the details, here's the download pdf or spreadsheet or modelling code”. Surely this is how peer-reviewed modelling works in climate science or applied macroeconomics, even computational proofs in mathematics. If renewable modellers are not seeking out peer review this way, they ought to.

    But please, not in Elsevier journals – as both Heard and Jacobson have done. This work is on the most important issue of public policy of our time. Citizens need to have free access to it. It is unworthy to ask readers to pay IP blackmail to Dutch highwaymen.

  9. May 18th, 2017 at 22:34 | #9

    Damn, the URLs got screwed up. Try again: Jacobson 1 and Jacobson 2.

  10. Ratee
    May 19th, 2017 at 16:54 | #10

    Please include me.

  11. Sancho
    May 19th, 2017 at 19:58 | #11

    Why not just make it a blog post?

  12. John Quiggin
    May 22nd, 2017 at 08:26 | #12

    @Sancho

    Some people like blogs, some like emails, some like social media. I’m happy to use any medium that works.

Comments are closed.