Author Archives: Russell Cook

About Russell Cook

Russell Cook is a semi-retired graphic artist. His collection of articles and blogs about the Gelbspan/Gore/Ozone Action/Greenpeace accusation can be seen here: http://gelbspanfiles.com/?page_id=86

Watch this space: “Michigan v. BP PLC”

Posted on by

2 items of business before I get to this latest climate lawfare development. First, for any of my climate friends/reporters/investigators who’ve sent me emails to my G mail address version in the last week which has my initial / last name / string of 5 numbers – please swap out the end after the “@” with “proton.me” and resend it, and then please change your contact email for me to that new version. Second, for whoever it is who’s decided to use my other G mail address that’s partly encrypted within my blog here (folks have to put out some effort to find it and de-encrypt it) and seen online elsewhere in only one other place on the internet:   I only use that address to contact people directly for answers to my research inquiries, and it may be used to send me alerts about typos in this blog and/or to alert me to info I need, or to hit me directly with criticism. Your use of it as part of your identity to sign up for conservative sites/events notifications (which I have zero interest in) can be considered a form of identity theft, at a Federal level. In case you haven’t noticed, Merrick Garland is no longer the head of the DoJ. You’ve been flagged at one if not two of the sites where you’ve put in my address without my permission; consider yourself warned. Cease and desist – go get a real job.

Now, for the latest readers arriving to this blog, I periodically have short descriptions of upcoming material under the “Watch this space” title. Up next, It took a while, but as I predicted back in May 2024 and updated 4½ months later, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has finally made her massively unwise decision official, but in her office’s effort (official filing here) to perhaps put more of a disguise on this particular Sher Edling boilerplate copy lawsuit version, they’re practically begging the defendants to hit it with a Motion to Dismiss over a specific unprovable accusation, while (if my educated guess holds out) the inclusion of a needlessly extra ‘assistant laws firm’ quite likely inadvertently torpedoes the UK Casquejo v Shell lawsuit.

Meanwhile, please do scroll down this blog post space to see my completed posts, including the one from just last week (its ‘Part 2 will have to wait until after my MI v. BP dissection), and please return soon to see how the next blog post coming up will fill in this space.

Victory Will Be Achieved When … average citizens “understand” (recognize) the urgency of the climate crisis demands decisive action

Posted on by

One of the more unnerving hallmarks of the zealot enviro-left (besides their basic trait of intellectual dishonesty – lying both to the public and themselves), is the manner in which they accuse others of actions they themselves do – a.k.a. psychological projection. The title of this blog post is a play on exactly that situation, surrounding a huge fault arising out of the otherwise pointless 30th UN climate conference that took place in November 2025 in Brazil. AmericanThinker author Susan Quinn’s 1/19/26 article title deftly points out what the fault was: “Climate change advocates at the UN launch new organized assault against free speech and information.” She’s referring to its misnamed “Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change.” Charles Rotter at WUWT covered the Declaration’s ‘assault’ one day before the end of the conference, succinctly describing it as “something George Orwell would have rejected for being too on-the-nose,” and he skewered even further with his concluding statement, “They call it “information integrity.” Let’s call it what it is: climate totalitarianism with a smile.”

An angle not covered by the above two analysis articles is how the irony of the construct underlying this Declaration sails right over the head of any zealot enviro-leftist who endorses it – they either don’t recognize it from elsewhere, or else they are oblivious to the way it is worded is just like the weapon they’ve used against the fossil fuel industry since 1998. Continue reading →

To understand why climate disinformation is so persistent, look at how the denial propaganda movement actually works

Posted on by

First, a brief word on my Dec19th post – no appearance yet of the actual lawsuit document for Casquejo v. Shell filed in the UK; stay tuned here to find out whether it regurgitates/plagiarizes U.S. “ExxonKnew” lawsuits content or if it blazes its own new ‘global warming damages’ path. Meanwhile, let’s examine another angle of the incessant psychological projection problem besieging proponents of ClimaChange™. Hat tip to my Facebook climate issue Friend Kurt Womack (a common citizen who I saw years ago fearlessly setting one wayward other common citizen straight on a particular angle of the climate issue). Kurt alerted me to this amazing example he spotted at the Heartland Institute’s “The Climate Realism Community” Facebook group discussion area, where the wayward enviro-commenter there inadvertently pointed out how fundamentally disingenuous the collective climate issue can be at several levels. My blog post title substitutes one word in the title for the load that the wayward enviro-poster dumped on Dec 29th into Heartland’s discussion thread, screencapture for posterity below in case the guy deletes it. From that starting point, let’s then see where it all falls apart at a minimum of three different levels.

Continue reading →

When the other side is oblivious to their own psychological projection …

Posted on by

First, a brief word on my prior post – no appearance yet of the actual lawsuit document for Casquejo et al. v Shell: rest assured, it isn’t just me looking for it, I’ve asked a prominent figure known for his own expertise on filing court actions to keep an eye out for it. Meanwhile, I’ll wrap up the 2025 year with an item gleaned out of my ongoing count of the PBS NewsHour’s climate reporting bias problem, where my days-old tally update was for the 2nd appearance of a particular IPCC-associated scientist. But this post isn’t about what she said, it was the spectacular bit of psychological projection the other guest offered. Continue reading →

Casquejo et al. v Shell PLC Part 1 – Potential problems in the [M.I.A.] lawsuit document

Posted on by

My list of “ExxonKnew” lawsuits I’ve dissected mentions at the top how it excludes American filings which never bring up the accusation about ‘liars-for-hire scientists on the payroll of Big Oil.’ Same actually applies to lawsuits filed outside of the U.S., such as the Peruvian Farmer’s one against a German energy company and Greenpeace’s one against an Italian energy company. Regarding this one filed in the UK on Dec 9th, a.k.a. “Casquejo and others v Shell plc” I cannot yet find the actual document that was filed. When I do, I will either amend this post to say there’s no “crooked skeptic scientists” accusation within it … or else I’ll dissect it as Part 2. What I have spotted – almost immediately in news reports after being alerted to it – are tell-tale indicators which prompts me to wager it will mimic the U.S. ones. Observe the following: Continue reading →

Kennedy et al. v. ExxonMobil Corporation et al.

Posted on by

This one, filed on November 25, 2025, should be quite easy to dissect, like I do with any other Sher Edling boilerplate copy lawsuit; compare their latest to one of the prior filings, with a checklist run-through of the key accusation narratives which repeat like clockwork from one filing to the next.

But we have a problem here, maybe a particularly huge one. While the key accusation narratives do indeed repeat like clockwork … this is not a Sher Edling boilerplate copy lawsuit. It’s a Hagens-Berman filing. They’re based in Seattle. But watch what happens when you compare this filing to the San Francisco Sher Edling law firm’s filing they did for the state of Hawaii in May 2025, plus one of their others filed in late 2023. I’ll start with Sher Edling’s trademark four accusation elements first, color coding my screencaptures below from each filing to show the shared words. Continue reading →

Background: Kert Davies

Posted on by

His name is one I’ve mentioned frequently at this GelbspanFiles blog, I have a tag category just for him of blog posts pointing to him in a significant way, the first one being in my August 30, 2013 post. As I noted in my Nov 18, 2025 post, since his name may possibly contribute to the journalism scandal the BBC news outlet is facing, and since his name and his three decades of efforts are frequently tied in some way to ongoing false accusations about ‘fossil fuel industry disinformation campaigns employing skeptic climate scientists,’ objective news reporters / Federal investigators / energy company defendants’ law firms may appreciate a Background post dedicated just to him. For such people to hold him accountable as being one of the central-most promulgators of that accusation, they have know how he got to that position, and where his claims crumble to dust under hard scrutiny, and where questions need to be asked about strange circumstances surrounding him. Continue reading →

There’s That Name Again … And There’s That Accusation Again [11/20/25 Update]

Posted on by

11/20/25 update — see red double asterisk addition midway down, and at the bottom of this post.

Among all the tsunami of other controversial political news is the barely weeks-old scandal involving the BBC over revelations of their journalism malfeasance. Since I know a decent amount about another as-yet-unreported angle of BBC inaccuracies, I’ve emailed several UK reporters and others digging deeper into the overall situation to my coincidental 12 days-old filing of my complaint to the UK’s broadcast regulatory agency on this matter. What I briefly explained is that in 2020, the BBC relied on unverified ‘industry memos’ in a careless and illogical manner to claim the fossil fuel industry ran disinformation campaigns; their effort was hardly different than what happened a few years ago when the anti-Trump news media relied on the meritless “Steele Dossier” to accuse President Trump of engaging in despicable acts. I further pointed out how the accusation against the fossil fuel industry has every indication in the world of being traceable to a particular enviro-activist, Kert Davies, and how much of a one-trick pony the worthless memo phrase is for the anti-energy company activists.

What I should do is create another post in my “Background” series, to compile all of Kert Davies’ fatal credibility problems for ease of reference when corresponding with objective reporters. I plan to do that for my next post here. But in the meantime, let’s see where the man popped up just recently, and where that one-trick memo phrase popped up. Continue reading →

Ofcom Complaint – [ the 2025 version ]

Posted on by

Relentless, I am. So here we go again with my continuing saga on imploring the mighty BBC news organization to do their core job. Call me “old school” on the matter, but news outlets are obligated – in my opinion – to report the news with no partisan slant, and to view information provided to them with a jaded eye, questioning any aspect of it where something just does not look right, and demanding not one but multiple rock-solid sources before publishing major accusations. In the case of the mid-summer 2020 report in which ex-Greenpeace operative Kert Davies brought the BBC ‘evidence’ which supposedly fit their program series titled “How They Made Us Doubt Everything” about the fossil fuel industry ‘ran disinformation campaigns to deceive the public’ … the BBC program producers should have first cast a basic ‘due diligence doubtful eye’ on whether Davies’ ‘evidence’ was verifiably true or not. They apparently did not, a basic violation of BBC’s own guidelines about gathering material. From that basic failure, they conveyed factual inaccuracies to their listening audience.

As I first detailed in my July blog post, when I spotted how the BBC strangely reworded their program title to eliminate the very phrase that was the core of my official complaint I filed, it was a ripe opportunity to refile my complaint. Now, here we go into the last available step in the complaint process. Continue reading →

BBC [appears to] Bury a False 2020 Climate Issue Report Title, Pt 4 — BBC Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) responds

Posted on by

For new readers and for those following along in my little war with the mighty BBC, this particular situation (collected within my tag category name here) arose from the news that the BBC ECU director Colin Tregear planned back in late June 2025 to take a six month sabbatical in order to learn better how to convey the ‘climate crisis’ to the public. That news prompted me to search for the blatantly false BBC program title for which I’d originally filed a complaint back in 2020, because I wanted to succinctly show how Mr Tregear might be better advised to learn how objective, unbiased journalism was done in comparison to what outright journalism malfeasance looks like. But upon seeing the change to the program title that must have occurred minimally two years after my complaint was officially filed, I filed an all new complaint, and further followed up with a strong suggestion that the BBC / ECU / Colin Tregear revisit my original complaint — fundamentally that BBC conveyed false information to the public by saying a particular set of ‘industry memos’ were proof that the fossil fuel industry ran disinformation campaigns. The evidence behind that is literally worthless.

In an October 24, 2025 email signed by Tregear himself, he attached a PDF file single page response, which is verbatim as follows, where I highlight the critical point in red and in boldface. I’ll follow up with additional input about this overall situation after Tregear’s words. Continue reading →