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
John Quiggin 
Hi John please add me
Count me in.
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/.
And me.
Can you count
me in too John aaahhhhhhh
Please add me
@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.
Damn, the URLs got screwed up. Try again: Jacobson 1 and Jacobson 2.
Please include me.
Why not just make it a blog post?
@Sancho
Some people like blogs, some like emails, some like social media. I’m happy to use any medium that works.