This post is outside of my standard dissection of the origins of the smear of skeptic climate scientists; the items I’ll be pointing out here today have no readily discernible connection with the ‘coal/oil corporate-paid lying shill scientists’ accusation. However, the question “What’s Up with Chevron?” as it pertains to that company’s action right before and during the recent ‘global warming tutorial courtroom hearing’ might still be worthwhile for objective reporters to ask, in light of the sheer worthlessness of the ‘coal/oil-paid lying shill scientists’ accusation, and the easily found abundance of science-based material questioning the ‘certainty’ of the idea about catastrophic man-caused global warming. Continue reading
From Todd Shepherd’s April 5, 2018 Washington Free Beacon article:
California cities suing Exxon and four other oil companies have reworded a portion of their original complaint after being rebuked by the presiding judge. …
… The cities had initially pointed to a 1996 internal memo from an industry group, the Global Climate Coalition (funded by the America Petroleum Institute), which said that, “a doubling of carbon dioxide levels over pre-industrial concentrations would occur by 2100 and cause ‘an average rate of warming [that] would probably be greater than any seen in the past 10,000 years.'”
… However, the memo was referencing an assessment by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and was not the independent findings of the GCC’s work.
The Free Beacon shows the backpedal rewording in their own photo link above, and I reproduce it here for good measure (click image to enlarge):
That specific paragraph section’s wording in its original form is what prompted the title of my prior March 30, 2018 blog post, “If California v. BP Implodes via Insufficient Evidence, so can New York City v. BP.” Read all the way through my blog post, and you’ll see how this ‘lack of evidence to prove a fossil fuel industry conspiracy’ problem with the twin California global warming lawsuits and the NYC one doesn’t end there, it ultimately points a giant red flashing arrow at the clique of people who have tried for 20+ years to say there is ‘a fossil fuel industry misinformation conspiracy to reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.’
The California lawsuits’ reworded paragraph section loses all its teeth as “smoking gun” evidence proving oil companies knew man-caused global warming was settled science. It shouldn’t be reworded, it should be stripped entirely out of the lawsuits, and the main lawyer behind the use of it in both the California and New York lawsuits – Matt Pawa – should be compelled to explain why he didn’t know the evidence was totally worthless ….. or whether he knew it was worthless the entire time. But as I showed in my prior blog post, that same paragraph section appears in Matt Pawa’s 2008 Kivalina v. Exxon lawsuit, as does the supposedly leaked memo subset insinuating skeptic climate scientist shills were paid and instructed under an industry strategy directive to “reposition global warming” which targeted “older, less-educated males” and “younger, lower-income women.”
No such targets or strategy was ever used by anybody anywhere.
The effort to prove the fossil fuel industry conspired to misinform the public about the certainty of man-caused global warming is demonstrably beginning to fall apart. The focus on where the real conspiracy is to be found should be turned 180 degrees in the opposite direction, to a particular small group people who’ve apparently conspired for years to misinform the public about the certainty of corporate-corrupted skeptic climate scientists.
With regard to the most recent series of municipalities suing energy companies to recover the ‘costs of man-caused global warming,’ never forget that these lawsuits are built on two premises: 1) “settled science facts” and 2) “industry-paid shill scientists following an industry-created conspiracy goal to cynically reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.” In a sinister way, no less. The presiding judge in the CA v. BP Oakland version of twin California lawsuits just indicated that there is no evidence for the conspiracy accusation. This spells doom for the other People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al. San Francisco Superior Court Case and for the City of New York v. BP case. In this post, I’ll explain how that is. Continue reading
In my work here, I follow the citations for ‘evidence’ which supposedly supports the accusation about ‘corrupt industry-paid lying skeptic climate scientists.’ But continuing on the theme I suggested at the end of my February 8, 2018 blog post — oil company lawyers and potentially other investigators examining correspondences of enviro-activists “not limited to” Naomi Oreskes — another name to keep an eye out for is Phil Radford. If lawyers / investigators / reporters ‘follow the proverbial money‘ with him, it could lead them to the core of people surrounding the inception of the ‘crooked skeptics’ accusation. Continue reading
That’s one of the pair of global warming lawsuits I covered in my October 6, 2017 “People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al” blog post. The People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al. San Francisco Superior Court Case is the other one; both are basically identical. Within that post toward the end, I briefly described what was suspect about a particular line in the lawsuits, regarding Science and Environment Public Policy (SEPP) founder Dr S Fred Singer. Since the news over the weekend concerned SEPP’s mention of “slander,” I thought it would be worthwhile to show why it is that SEPP would say such a thing. Continue reading
A student lawyer wrote a prize winning essay about how to get testimony from skeptic experts excluded from such cases. When you see what evidence this essay is based on, the question arises on whether the prize should be revoked and the writer reprimanded for not undertaking basic due diligence to find out if the “evidence” he cited was actually reliable. Continue reading
An innocuous-looking mention of a university professor in connection with one of Al Gore’s latest public appearances is worthy of a major second look. Continue reading
Might as well save the trees and lower the carbon footprint of ink by either having one big 60 page+ lawsuit printout labeled “Fill-in-the-blank v. Various Oil Companies et al.,” or better yet, a single piece of paper brought to all future courthouses with “Fill-in-the-blank v. Any Energy Company We Can Think Of et al.” at the top, and “See County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. et al.” in the middle. Problem is, the recent craze of communities suing to recoup costs associated with man-caused global warming only amplifies the fatal problem within all of these lawsuits. Continue reading
Full disclosure guy, I am. Continue reading
When Al Gore authoritatively states “Exxon Mobil has funded 40 different front groups that have all been a part of a strategic persuasion campaign to, in their own words, ‘reposition global warming as theory rather than fact’“, why is he and others who hurl that accusation not met with a question something similar to “Reposition – what? Where do you get that statement from?” I have absolutely no problem with people asking me to back up what I say or show. Allow me to explain with the following: Continue reading