For YOUR viewing only …” / “unlisted and not to be shared

Just one more thing (because there’s always one more thing) regarding what I illustrated in my dissection of the two weeks-old California v Exxon lawsuit, about the intellectually dishonest way the mainstream media was implying it was some kind of new and wondrous situation.

There’s actually nothing new about it al all, as seen by the way it seemingly plagiarizes half decade-old litigation wording. But that’s only one element of the larger problem.

The NPR online article I featured had an adoration theme happening, but they perhaps inadvertently pointed an arrow to a hidden angle of the lawsuit when they quoted,

“California’s decision to take Big Oil companies to court is a watershed moment in the rapidly expanding legal fight to hold major polluters accountable for decades of climate lies,” said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, a group focused on holding fossil fuel companies accountable for their role in driving climate change.

“Holding fossil fuel companies accountable” … how exactly?

The NPR reporter never says how. One wouldn’t expect a mainstream media reporter to do that kind of hard-nosed journalism these days. So, it’s up to others to do the MSM’s job for them

At the Government Accountability & Oversight (GAO) group’s February 8, 2023 Climate Litigation Watch page “Another Window Into the Climate Litigation World,” they revealed some interesting details of just exactly what the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) does, namely work to prompt governmental prosecutors to launch “Exxon Knew”-style lawsuits. Except CCI doesn’t want others to see what they do.

This 33 minute video is for YOUR viewing only. The link is unlisted and is not meant to be shared.

Unlisted at Youtube, meaning any search within Youtube will never turn it up.

The above January 2022 document and many others were turned up in Freedom of Information Act requests to the Township of Maplewood, New Jersey, concerning CCI “Pay Up Climate Polluters” staffers educating various New Jersey city officials on how to launch an “Exxon Knew” lawsuit.

What’s in that unlisted video? The GAO group was able to figure out what the lame password was, and made their own copy of it that Youtube and/or CCI cannot delete off the internet.

It’s a little more cumbersome to work with that way as an MP4 video copy, and with no closed captioning option, I’m not able to show what they say on their screen. But I have transcribed two sections to make a point about what CIC does that they don’t want to share, and where those efforts of theirs ultimately end up.

Pull the slider over to the 38:05 point, and you hear CCI’s Managing Attorney Corey Riday-White saying,

… as Geoffrey [Supran] discussed, there’s a long history of industry knowing exactly what use of their product was going to do. Here’s one document going back to 1978 …

Riday-White refers to the “James Black Report” pages shown on his screen – note the small smudge spots in the top right of the corner of the one page there — whadaya know, that’s the same Black Report that appears in every one of the San Fransisco law firm Sher Edling’s “Exxon Knew” lawsuits, e.g. Annapolis v. BP and Honolulu v Sunoco, the very same photocopies that Kert Davies uploaded to the “DocumentCloud” website from his Climate Investigations Center, where his “Climate Files” platform of industry document scans, is the supply source of those to the Sher Edling law firm. And whadaya know, Riday-White’s’ Black Report photocopies from Kert Davies are the same Black Report that the citation link in the two week-old ‘supposedly independently filed’ CA v Exxon lawsuit points to – same little smudge dots and all.

Meanwhile, continuing on in CCI’s thou-shalt-not-view-it video, at the 38:32 point, Riday-White shows …

ye olde horribly degraded photocopies of the “victory will be achieved” memos – sourced from Kert Davies when he worked at Greenpeace in 2013. Whadaya know, those are the same horribly degraded “victory will be achieved” memos in all of the Sher Edling lawsuits, e.g. Baltimore v BP and Charleston v. Brabham Oil.

And whadaya know, that’s the same awful copies seen in the two week-old CA v Exxon lawsuit’s citation link to see the memos.

Much like the way Vic Sher of Sher Edling can’t get his facts right about his own lawsuits, Riday-White doesn’t get the date right on when the “victory will be achieved” memo set was written.

… as Geoffrey cited this victory memo, what they did starting in 1988 here is instead of coming clean and being honest about what their products would do when burned and giving the public that information, instead they launched this campaign of deception and they thought “victory would be had when we understood this uncertainty” which they knew was fully certain.

The “victory will be achieved” memos were written in 1998. When the Black Report was presented in 1978, it was only a year after the brainy detective character on the “Barney Miller” sitcom explained the perils of the imminent ice age, and 1978 was the year the New York Times reported about the global cooling trend having no end in sight.

Back to the core problem here, though: what’s the reason behind CCI’s efforts to keep what they do hidden from the larger public? It’s a completely fair game question, since the prior Democrat majority in the U.S. House Oversight committee directly implied that the fossil fuel industry has something to hide, but those Democrats on that committee offered not a scintilla of evidence that anything was hidden. The best they could come up with was ye olde worthless, never implemented “victory will be achieved” memos. Who was the Democrat majority’s source for the “victory” memos? Inside Climate News’ PDF file copy for those scratchy old photoscans …. that had the identical smudge marks as Kert Davies’ copies.

Here, however, the Center for Climate Integrity ‘salesmen’ pushing the idea of “Exxon Knew”-style lawsuits are caught directly in the act of hiding something.

Why? Inquiring minds want to know, and are apparently going to find out.