{"id":14233,"date":"2022-10-30T16:53:34","date_gmt":"2022-10-30T23:53:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/?p=14233"},"modified":"2025-05-10T16:14:42","modified_gmt":"2025-05-10T23:14:42","slug":"watch-this-space-nj-ag-elects-to-commit-political-suicide-via-platkin-v-exxon-mobil-corp","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/?p=14233","title":{"rendered":"Platkin v Exxon Mobil Corp.<\/i>"},"content":{"rendered":"

At his October 18 video news conference announcement<\/a> of his same-day filing of Platkin v. ExxonMobil<\/em><\/a>, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin implied the science of catastrophic climate events caused by the burning of fossil fuels was settled, and that his seemingly stand-alone bold lawsuit action to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for knowing their harm and disinforming the public for decades was timely and meaningful for New Jersey residents. And he thanked a lot of attorneys for their help in bringing this case, including one particular law firm, “our outside council Sher Edling<\/strong><\/em><\/a>.”<\/p>\n

To set up the political suicide of this situation – how it is not timely at all, and how he really could have thanked just the one law firm there – I paraphrase a scene out of a famous movie<\/a>:<\/p>\n

I have to say that’s the most amazing story I’ve ever heard. What amazes me most is that he was taken in by it. It’s obvious this fellow Platkin was impressed by the Sher Edling law firm. He hears their tales of woe about climate and tries to cheer NJ residents up with this announcement. He’s young, not terribly bright.<\/strong> It’s not surprising he wouldn’t know what a state he puts his supporters in.<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

It’s amazing at the science level – experts across the range of science involving “superstorm Sandy” can explain at huge depth how its size didn’t have a thing to do with “Clima-Change\u2122” but was instead a combination of factors including Sandy striking an area where the undersea geography<\/a> had heightened its storm surge<\/a>, and how its otherwise Category 1 size (if even that<\/em> big<\/a>) had merged with a large and coincidental inland storm area<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And it’s amazing at an anti-intellectual level, because when AG Platkin claims<\/a> the defendant energy companies and the American Petroleum Institute “have known since the 1950s that their fossil fuel products are a main driver of global climate change … They knew that fossil fuels were causing global warming, melting polar ice caps and triggering sea level rise<\/em>, it absolutely contradicts reports of climate scientists predicting <\/a>global cooling.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

I leave the science angle of the issue for objective, unbiased scientists to explain all the massive faults with the idea that “Exxon Knew” oil consumption was warming the planet<\/a>.<\/p>\n

What amazes me is AG Platkin’s technically disinformation bit about “today we begin to right the wrongs<\/em><\/a>” as though this is the first such action to hold energy companies responsible for sinisterly aiming to declare ‘victory will be achieved when we reposition global warming as theory rather than fact<\/em>.’ And it amazes me that he essentially committed the political suicide act of merely mentioning how he has Sher Edling as his outside council, because that’s<\/em> his source for the composite ‘leaked industry memos smoking gun evidence.’ In the face of it not being possible that ‘Big Coal & Oil’ could have known with any certainty that burning fossil fuels caused either cooling or heating or canceled out both, and in the face of the cornerstone evidence in this filing and the 15<\/strong> prior Sher Edling boilerplate copy lawsuits<\/a> being literally worthless as evidence proving industry-led disinformation campaigns exist, if any one of these lawsuits collapse due to lack of evidence, it implodes all of the others and leaves the public, policymakers, and journalists no excuse to dismiss what skeptic climate scientists say.<\/p>\n

Even more amazing is that in answer to a barely heard question about other similar lawsuits, AG Platkin said<\/a> “Hoboken, about a dozen cities and counties that have brought similar, not identical, lawsuits to us including Hoboken in about six states<\/em>…” and then added<\/a> that it was both timely and will deliver meaningful results.<\/p>\n

No, essentially identical<\/strong> in either their basic enslavement to ye olde<\/em> “reposition global warming” strategy memo phrase, as in Hoboken v Exxon<\/em><\/a>, or almost literally identical<\/em><\/strong> in the specific paragraphs citing those memos. No, not timely, he is literally the last<\/strong> (so far) of the johhny-come-latelies to the Sher Edling traveling circus act. But if his lawsuit collapses, it’ll expose where the real disinformation has apparently been the whole time in the climate issue. From that potential result, least he will have gotten the “meaningful results” part right.<\/p>\n

What’s one part of AG Platkin’s cornerstone evidence for his claim “they led a decades long disinformation campaign<\/em><\/a>\u201d?<\/p>\n

Can’t make this up, it’s the same paragraph in the half decade-old<\/em><\/strong> Sept 2017 County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp<\/em> \u2026.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u2026. that’s essentially identical to his own paragraph – below – for the “reposition global warming” memos. Notice the “as well as younger, lower-income women<\/em>” memo phrase in San Mateo<\/em> is missing in AG Platkin’s filing. As I noted<\/a> in my February 8, 2018 blog post dissection<\/a> of the second trio of County<\/em> \/ City of Santa Cruz<\/em> \/ City of Richmond<\/em> lawsuits, that omission started there and continued in every Sher Edling copy \u2019n paste filing afterward. No reason for AG Platkin or his staff to deviate \u2026. despite that secondary phrase being good enough for Ross Gelbspan circa 1997<\/a>, and good enough for Gelbspan \/ Ozone Action circa 1996<\/a>, and good enough for Senator Al Gore circa 1992<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

AG Platkin adds to that ‘evidence,’ following the template of County of San Mateo<\/em> and all the rest of the Sher Edling filings, an identical presentation of “newspaper ads evidence” which supposedly prove disinformation campaigns exist \u2026.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u2026. despite the Chicken Little ad \/ Doomsday ad never<\/em> being published anywhere and both<\/em> having the unsolicited<\/a>, never-used incorrect ICE label<\/a> “Informed Citizens for the Environment” \u2014 seen with much better clarity<\/a> within the old Ozone Action\/Greenpeace scans’<\/a> downloaded PDF file, pages 49 & 50<\/a>. Did the “Most Serious Problem” ad contain outright disinformation? You be the judge. Zoom in on the cropped-out text here<\/a> that AG Platkin can’t or won’t show you.<\/p>\n

What’s the other cornerstone ‘leaked memos’ evidence AG Platkin for his “they led a decades long disinformation campaign<\/em>” claim?<\/p>\n

Ye olde<\/em> “victory will be achieved” memos \u2026.. with the identical innocuous-looking “documentcloud” source for the memos that – as I covered in my dissection of Honolulu v. Sunoco<\/em><\/a> – is actually an upload from Kert Davies when he still worked at Greenpeace<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

That<\/em> Kert Davies, as I’ve pointed out many prior times at my GelbspanFiles blog, the man whose header photo<\/a> at his Climate Investigations Center (CIC) “Climate Watchdog” Twitter account is ye olde<\/em> horribly degraded “victory will be achieved” photocopy scan, the same Kert Davies whose workplace prior to Greenpeace was Ozone Action<\/a>, the place that was the first to provide lasting, ongoing media traction<\/a> to ye olde<\/em> “reposition global warming” ‘leaked memos;’ the same Kert Davies who runs the Climate Files platform<\/a> through his CIC website, the same Climate Files apparently supplying the Sher Edling law firm<\/a> with worthless never-published newspaper ad “evidence,” the same Climate Files cited a minimum of 13 times<\/a> within AG Platkin’s lawsuit.<\/p>\n

The assorted officials filing these lawsuits apparently have some leeway on what they add to the Sher Edling template. Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen\u2019s Associations Inc. (PCFFA) v. Chevron<\/em> was just 94 pages long<\/a>. Delaware v. BP<\/em> ballooned out to 222 pages<\/a>. AG Platkin’s is 200. Credit him or somebody in his office for finally<\/em> changing<\/strong><\/a> the prior unbroken string of repetitions, though, of the first page Introduction sentence (#1 San Mateo to #15 Anne Arundel<\/a>), about a planet warmed<\/strong> from burnt fossil fuels. Problem is, whether it’s “since the 1950s” (which also means into the early 1960s) or “nearly half a century” (2022 – 48 = 1974), these lawsuits fatally plow into a brick wall since the fossil fuel industry could not have known their products cause warming \u2026\u2026. because – again<\/em><\/a> – global cooling<\/a>.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong> Cooling.<\/a>\u00a0 Cooling!<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the basic Sher Edling boilerplate template is still nevertheless in place. There are the two instances above involving ye olde<\/em> worthless leaked industry memos. Then there is:<\/p>\n

\u2713 AG Platkin’s reference to the “Black Report” to claim Exxon knew back in 1977-\u201978 how the polar region temperatures were going to rise. Identical<\/strong> to what’s in the two year-old Maui v. Sunoco<\/em> filing<\/a>. Down to the same citation source of Kert Davies’ Climate Files site. Keep scrolling up through both lawsuits starting at that page, the prior several paragraphs are almost word-for-word identical.<\/p>\n

\u2713 AG Platkin’s reference to a particular narrative about \u2018Big Oil\u2019 bankrolling skeptic climate scientists. Almost identical<\/strong> to what’s in the Charleston v. Brabham Oil<\/em> filing<\/a> \u2014 he adds a couple of words and adds Dr Willie Soon’s name specifically, possibly digging a libel hole for himself. Dr Soon flatly denies the accusation<\/a>, and also shows how the Smithsonian citation falls apart<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u2713 AG Platkin’s reference to the “Richard Lawson” memo, which begs for trouble with its citation of Naomi Oreskes<\/a>. Same as in the nearly 4 year old\u00a0PCFFA v. Chevron<\/em> filing<\/a> \u2014 plus\/minus a couple of words.<\/p>\n

\u2713 AG Platkin’s reference to President Lyndon Johnson that follows the Sher Edling template which started with the two year-old Delaware v. BP<\/em> filing. He added two words there and a hyphen<\/a>.<\/p>\n

No amount of fiddling with the wording will save AG Platkin from his self-inflicted political suicide, though. After listening to AG Platkin thanking so many attorneys<\/a> with Sher Edling at the very end, one is left to wonder if all those others only contributed the little word tweaks, while the big thanks still goes to Sher Edling for the core template.<\/p>\n

Why are all these repetitions massively problematic for AG Platkin? They are a pretty good indicator that his office did no basic due diligence to see if the Sher Edling filing template was above reproach.<\/p>\n