Mr Jacobson, a climatologists at Stanford University wrote a paper. Its findings were disputed in another paper. Jacobson maintains that the USA can be served for its energy needs exclusively with green energy. The contrarians have it that there must be a mix of conventional and green energy.
There are several issues with the latter paper; it is a paper supported by the conventional energy industry. The result of the paper are in the best interest of this energy and the paper is considered by many not to be the result of a scientific process. So much so that Jacobson went to court.
There is a big difference with an opinion piece and a scientific paper. The critique of the contrarians is that Mr Jacobson does not consider nuclear, fuel and bio fuel solutions at all. They argue that it could make the transition more difficult or expensive. But that is not the point. The point is that you can and, the point is that green energy is getting cheaper.
When a paper is bought by industry and the premise of the original paper is ignored, it is no longer scientific but becomes an opinion piece. Mr Jacobson is not the first predicting the demise of "big" energy, Greepeace has been doing it for decades..
There is no middle ground. It is why Mr Jacobson is going to court because the paper of the contrarians only serves one purpose; postponing the inevitable. It is not a scientific critique in any acceptable way.