Talk:Benjamin Sovacool

From ScienceForSustainability
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Email exchange between Benjamin Sovacool and Science for Sustainability

03/12/2020 email from Benjamin Sovacool to Science for Sustainability

In a message: "Right to reply - https://scienceforsustainability.org/wiki/Benjamin_Sovacool" Professor Sovacool wrote:

Dear editors,

You recently published here a strongly-worded and problematically-unsubstantiated webpage, directly dedicated to criticising me as well as a recent peer-reviewed article in Nature of which I was co-author.

It is unfortunate that you did not even inform us as authors of your posting of this critique, let alone solicit a response or offer a right of reply. Yet it is in the interests of reasoned collegial discussion on these kinds of issues, that this kind of open, substantive exchange takes place.

I would therefore ask in the interests of scientifically rigorous and democratically accountable debate, that you please invite a response from us to rebut the points made, to be posted with at least the same length and prominence of the critique you have already published.

We would likewise reciprocally be very pleased to offer you space on our own blogsite (at the University of Sussex Energy Group here), to reply to our own response to your critical blogpost, that we published in reaction to a query left on our site by a third party.

Sincerely,

________________________

Benjamin K. Sovacool, Ph.D FAcSS


07/12/2020 12:49 Science for Sustainability reply to B Sovacool

Dear Professor Sovacool,

Thank you for your interest in the Science for Sustainability (SfS) project.

It is unclear from your email what you object to.

You start by referring, with a link, to this site's article on your work. However towards the end of your message you give a link to what you say is "our own response to your critical blogpost". The link is to comment-1462 on your blog, by your co-author Andy Stirling, responding to comment-1457 by Todd D who asked:

"I was curious if you had any thoughts or comments on this post? https://nuclearinnovationalliance.org/we-need-both-nuclear-and-renewables-protect-climate"

The link Todd D gives is to a blog post on the "Nuclear Innovation Alliance" website, not on the SfS wiki. Neither Todd D nor Andy Stirling even mentions Science for Sustainability, nor is this site mentioned anywhere else on the blog thread. Why then do you refer to "your" (i.e. Science for Sustainability's) "critical blogpost"?

In his comment Andy Stirling makes the same complaints about the Nuclear Innovation Alliance's post that you make in your email (below) e.g. describing it repeatedly as "this critical blogpost", that "the authors regrettably did not inform [you] about", and not giving you "a right to reply".

Is it possible that you are confusing the NIA's blog post with SfS' article about your work, which simply quotes from the NIA piece?

Perhaps you should direct your complaint, and demand for a "right to reply", to the NIA?

sincerely,


07/12/2020 21:07 B Sovacool to SfS

Dear editors, it was directed to you. In your webpage (which I referred to as a blogpost) you make a number of claims about our work. I am asking, below, for the right to reply on your webpage. Simply put: we would like to rebut your article and are asking for an equally long and prominently placed reply that can be linked to it.

In return, I an making an offer that you can write a reply on our own blog page if you wish—in the spirit of exchange and debate. But, this is not necessary, it is only an offer.


08/12/2020 10:48 SfS to B.S.

Dear Professor Sovacool,

Thank you for your reply.

Unfortunately it is still not clear why, if you are objecting to the article about your work on the Science for Sustainability site, you referred to "your critical blogpost" which was actually a blog post by the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, on their own website, which has nothing to do with this site. Please could you explain?

sincerely,


08/12/2020 10:50 BS to SfS

Because the blogpost is where we are handling Q&As about our nuclear research – half of which is critiqued by your webpage. As I said, it’s a optional invitation for you to write something. But not necessary. You can ignore that part of our request if you wish.


09/12/2020 12:02 SfS to BS

Thanks you for the clarification.

You are most welcome to submit your comments on this site's page. Please note that this site is not a blog like the one on your site to which you referred (and kindly offered an opportunity to write something) so whether to incorporate your reply into the page itself or to present it in a page of its own (with an introduction or summary and link on the page itself) is an editorial decision which will be based on the length of your piece. (The style of SfS articles is generally to present summaries of, or quotes from, longer pieces - such as abstracts of papers - with links to the pieces themselves.)

Regardless of length and placement it would be greatly appreciated if you could present the gist of your responses to specific criticisms in short pieces which could be included in-line with passages in the article itself. In particular please could you respond succinctly to the criticisms of your recent Nature Energy paper by Knipfer, Gilbert, and the NIA, which say that your study is comparing countries like DRC which have very low emissions due to their poverty with countries like France and Sweden which, despite their decarbonised electricity, still have much higher emissions from heating, transport and industry than DRC-like countries? (Stirling's response to the NIA article in your group's blog did not clearly show why this criticism was invalid.)

Please feel free if you wish to use links in such shorter responses to sections within your full response (as well as, naturally, links and/or references to external resources).