Tag Archives: Sher Edling assistance

Connecticut v. Exxon — the Sher Edling connection

Posted on by

Ok, that was an utterly predictable development. This news was announced at the Energy in Depth site in their July 1, “Connecticut Joins the Club: State Quietly Enlists Sher Edling in National Climate Lawfare Campaign” article. I dissected the ‘indeptendently-led’ Connecticut v Exxon in my October 24, 2020 blog post, pointing out how it was only half as effective as the pile of Sher Edling boilerplate copy lawsuits because it relied on the second best accusation material the enviro-activists have in their arsenal about ‘industry-led disinformation campaigns.’ An accusation based on a never implemented – (never implemented!) industry memo, by the way.

Maybe now, the San Francisco-based Sher Edling law firm can show how the most effective way of committing climate issue political suicide is done, since they rely on that worthless memo evidence and another worthless, never-implemented memo in their boilerplate copy series of lawsuits across the U.S. Plus, there is one other possible problem which perhaps might indicate this co-counsel situation was somehow already in the works maybe on an informal basis back in 2020. Continue reading →

City of Boulder, Boulder County and San Miguel County v. Suncor Energy, ExxonMobil — the Sher Edling connection

Posted on by

Whenever I tell reporters, politicians/staffers and others about the way the “Exxon Knew”-style global warming lawsuits’ accusations are enslaved to one or the other or both of ye olde notorious ‘leaked industry documents’ known as the “reposition global warming” memos and the “victory will be achieved” memos for the claim that ‘industry-led disinformation campaigns’ existed, I always use the factually correct detail to say “nearly all” of the 28 lawsuits I list suffer from that fatal enslavement. The implication is that those with that enslavement could be thrown out, since the directives and objectives of each memo set were never carried out by any fossil fuel industry entity. In my April 26, 2018 dissection of Boulder v Suncor I felt a little uncomfortable with it being more of a ‘stretch of association’ in my list of 28, I admit, because the filing doesn’t refer at all to either memo set. King County v. BP also didn’t refer to either memo set, but since its lead lawyer was the same one leading the (subsequently dismissed) 2008 Kivalina v. Exxon lawsuit with its unmistakable enslavement to both memo sets, I include King County in my “Exxon Knew” lawsuits list. A little tenuous, perhaps, but the attorney connection between the two cases begs for much deeper investigation.

Regarding Boulder v Suncor, my dissection showed how the filing shared too many passages in a suspect way with other lawsuits that were enslaved to those memo sets, and how there were connections of the handlers of the lawsuit, EarthRights International (ERI), to other notorious accusers who are enslaved to regurgitating the “reposition global warming” memos as evidence of industry disinformation campaigns.

Now, I’m much more comfortable with my placement of Boulder in my list of 28, as the title of this blog post implies. Watch this:

Continue reading →

Throw One More Global Warming Lawsuit on the Sher Edling Pile

Posted on by

Specifically, the Minnesota vs. API, et al. global warming lawsuit filed on 6/24/20 which I had previously labeled as an “independently-led” lawsuit in my list of all the “Exxon Knew”-style lawsuits that allege fossil fuel company executives colluded with skeptic climate scientists to spread disinformation designed to undercut Al Gore’s ‘settled global warming science.’ In my June 26, 2020 dissection of this lawsuit, I noted how it rather predictably followed what appears to be an almost standard template for such lawsuits, where it dutifully offered both the worthless “reposition global warming” memo set (PDF file page 32) and the similarly worthless “victory will be achieved” memo set (PDF file page 34) as evidence to prove industry-orchestrated disinformation campaigns misled the public. The usage of both memo sets is a hallmark of what I term the ‘boilerplate-identical’ lawsuits being handled by the Sher Edling law firm. It seems Sher Edling never learned that both sets were unsolicited by the groups they were proposed to, and that neither set was ever implemented in any fashion by any industry people as goals to achieve or guidelines to follow.

At the end of my dissection, after noting many other troubling connections between the lawsuit and longtime promulgators of those worthless memo sets, I asked a basic question: was this lawsuit an entirely independent effort undertaken by the Minnesota Attorney General’s office, or is there some kind of larger multi-state / municipality coordinated prosecution effort going on? A bit over a week ago, a new complication to the question appeared which doesn’t look especially helpful to the Minnesota AG’s office, or for any of the others filing such lawsuits. Continue reading →

D.C. v ExxonMobil, et. al Pt 2: the “17,000 Scientists” Source Problem

Posted on by

It doesn’t take more than a few seconds of internet searching to discover how the Oregon Petition Project had over 31,000 signers, corroborated not only at the Home Page of the website for the petition itself, but also at sites highly biased against it such as Wikipedia and Desmogblog (that Desmog). But as I showed in my Part 1 dissection of that lawsuit, the District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine’s lawsuit only placed the number at 17,000, with no citation source for that number.

Where could that hugely outdated figure originate?  Continue reading →

District of Columbia v ExxonMobil Corp, BP Plc, Chevron Corp, Royal Dutch Shell Plc (10/17/20 update)

Posted on by

[10/17/20 Author’s update: see red asterisked items below near the end]

Unlike Minnesota vs. API, et al. which I dissected only days ago in my prior blog post, this DC v Exxon et. al lawsuit only crashes half as badly concerning worthless ‘leaked memos’ it relies on for its claim that the fossil fuel industry hired shill skeptic climate scientists to engage in disinformation campaigns. It still completely crashes on that angle nevertheless. Here’s how. Continue reading →

State of Minnesota v American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil Corp, Koch Industries, Flint Hills Resources

Posted on by

Note: See my Dec 29, 2020 update on how this filing became a “Sher Edling assistance” one.

The more frequently these global warming lawsuits appear claiming fossil fuel industry executives paid skeptic climate scientists to participate in sinister disinformation campaign efforts to undercut the ‘settled science,’ the easier it is to show how the ‘evidence’ for that accusation implodes. This Minnesota vs. API, et al. lawsuit, filed on 6/24/20, ends up being a case study on how to commit political suicide, first via its enslavement to the same two sets of worthless ‘leaked industry memos’ which have been floated ever since the 1990s as proof of that corporate / skeptic conspiracy, and second, via its links for copies of those memos from one of the central members of the small clique of enviro-activists who’ve been promulgating them that whole time.

If the Minnesota AG’s office had undertaken the most basic kind of due diligence to find out if the ‘leaked memos evidence’ actually proves the existence of disinformation campaigns, it might not have wasted any taxpayer money filing the lawsuit. Without that ‘evidence,’ the lawsuit would struggle to disprove hugely detailed assessments from skeptic climate scientists, while also trying to prove API and the other defendants ever actually accepted the ‘science’ of the IPCC / Al Gore side of the issue. Continue reading →

State of New York v. Exxon / Massachusetts v. Exxon … showcasing Exxon’s evil disinformation campaign?

Posted on by

[Author’s 3/30/24 addition: Per this 3/29/24 Fox News article, Massachusetts v. Exxon is now a “Sher Edling assistance” lawsuit.]

Never lose sight of how Al Gore said at the 2008 Davos conference that “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.’” And don’t forget how Gore was a prominent part of a March 2016 announcement by seven Attorneys General (including Massachusetts AG Maura Healey, led by NY AG Eric Schneiderman) regarding their prosecution of Exxon, where he cited Naomi Oreskes in reference to the way Big Oil employed the same people who operated in disinformation campaigns for the tobacco industry to hide the harm of cigarette smoking.

Exxon, in other words, knew their oil products were harming the planet by causing global warming, but hired ‘shill experts’ to hide that by saying global warming was naturally occurring.

Do these Attorneys General-led New York / Massachusetts lawsuits against Exxon present evidence to back up that accusation? Not so much. Or strangely, not at all for the New York one. Continue reading →

City of Boulder, Boulder County and San Miguel County v. Suncor Energy, ExxonMobil

Posted on by

Here we go again. This could be the point in time, though, when these lawsuits are one or two steps less directly connected* with the core clique of people who’ve long been pushing the ‘industry-paid skeptic climate scientists’ accusation, compared to the other recent lawsuits. [*9/10/23 author’s revision: Not quite – I’ve relabeled this one as a Sher Edling assistance filing, as explained here]. Continue reading →