Among nearly all of those others (the bulk of which are boilerplate copies filed by a single law firm<\/a>, tailor-made for each new set of plaintiffs), the premise boils down to this:\u00a0 a pair of ‘leaked industry memo sets’ and particular ‘disinformation advertorials’ (attributed to one of those memo sets), along with claims that Exxon paid a specific skeptic climate scientist over a million dollars, all prove the fossil fuel industry deceived the public how they knew with certainty as far back as the 1960s \/ ’70s that the use of their products caused global warming (or, in this latest case<\/a>, whatever ‘climate change’ is supposed to be). Case closed<\/strong>, the entire industry should be sued out of business on that alone. Not all of these lawsuits follow that exact template, however. As I detailed in my dissection of Connecticut v Exxon<\/em><\/a> and D.C. v BP<\/em><\/a>, those filings omitted any mention of the supposedly more viable memo set, and instead chose the weaker set<\/a> as their cornerstone evidence<\/a> about ‘disinformation campaigns.’ Boulder\/San Miguel v. Suncor Energy<\/em> doesn’t mention either set, but does mention the ‘Exxon bribe’<\/a> of the skeptic scientist. As I detailed in an update to my dissection of that one<\/a>, it’s now folded into the mix of the law firm handling the majority of these lawsuits, and that firm rigidly adheres to the 2 memo sets \/ advertorials \/ Exxon bribe template . . . . and each element is worthless as evidence to prove any disinformation campaign happened. Both memo sets’ directives were never implemented \/ specific ‘advertorials’ they point to were never published \/ the scientist was not bribed by Exxon at all. On top of it all, there’s no way any energy company knew of global warming back in the days of 1960s<\/a> \/ ’70s reports<\/a> about global cooling<\/a>.\u00a0 Cooling!<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n Carrboro v Duke Energy<\/em> goes off the reservation by relying solely on the more viable-looking<\/em> memo set in its ill-advised quest<\/a> to be an “ElectricUtilitiesKnew” lawsuit. But the twist here is how it falsely ties different ‘newspaper advertorials’ to that never implemented<\/em> memo set. In doing so, they’ve chosen to commit political suicide using a different gun, and this blunder only further erodes how this collective lawfare effort works, implicating the same ‘usual suspects’ behind the smear of skeptic climate scientists.<\/p>\n Emphasis on the ludicrous “UtilitiesKnew” angle. For readers here to fully comprehend how this mess falls apart, I highly recommend reading my links about the origins<\/a> of that dumb angle. You won’t know why we now have this newest lawsuit without knowing how we traveled to this point.<\/p>\n First thing I do when I see one of these lawsuits is to drop words into a search within their PDF files, first for the main law firm pushing these to see if it is one of their boilerplate copies, then the words “Soon” (for the scientist falsely accused<\/a>) \/ “victory” (for the less viable-looking, never implemented memo set<\/a>) \/ “reposition” (for the more viable-looking<\/em> memo set, of which the never-published “Chicken Little” ‘newspaper advertorial’<\/a> is often seen hand-in-glove<\/a> with that memo set<\/a>.)<\/p>\n No dice on the first three. However, PDF page 24, paragraph 91:<\/p>\n \u2026 in May 1991, EEI supported a test marketing campaign<\/strong> designed to “Reposition global warming as theory (not fact).” With the backing of EEI, the marketing campaign targeted Kentucky and was directly run by an organization named Information Council for the Environment (“ICE”), which was an industry front group.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n EEI is the Edison Electric Institute. It did no such thing.<\/p>\n The only detail this Carrboro<\/em> filing remotely gets correct there is that the actual pilot project campaign was indeed an effort operated under the “Information Council<\/em><\/strong> for the Environment.” A so-called expert<\/a> on alleged industry campaigns (on retainer with the big pusher<\/a> of the other lawsuits) can’t even get that simple detail right. Notice Carrboro<\/em>‘s “test marketing” words above. The other lawsuits don’t mince words there, they – falsely – say this was a nationwide<\/em><\/strong> campaign<\/a>; no mention whatsoever of “test<\/em>.” One falsely pins the “reposition” memo set basically on Chevron,<\/a> an oil company, not some electric utilities backer. Carrboro<\/em> thus undercuts those other lawsuits with their accusation variant.<\/p>\n The undercutting doesn’t stop there.<\/p>\n Immediately following the accusation about the never-used memos (I’ll link to the proof for that below; hold that thought), Carrboro<\/em> follows with the ICE ads. The other lawsuits, whether being the boilerplate copy ones or other filings apparently plagiarizing from those copies<\/a>, only ever dredged up horribly degraded images of the advertorials out of the “Greenpeace USA n\u00e9e Ozone Action” scans collection<\/a>, where two were never published and one actually was. This newest lawsuit doesn’t use those specific degraded images at all, that’s the undercut and that’s the big new twist.<\/p>\n They show ICE’s actual print ads<\/em> which a very tiny slice<\/a> of the American population saw.<\/p>\n What’s Carrboro<\/em>‘s source for their accusation about the “reposition global warming” memos? What’s their source for these actual published print advertorials that no other law firm<\/strong> has the courage to show? Carrboro<\/em> has zero footnotes or end notes for any of their references. None. Where is the one place where four genuinely published “Kentucky” ICE ads were seen online<\/strong> together?<\/p>\n Right here at GelbspanFiles. In my January 7, 2022 “The Real ICE ads, Part 4: what the public actually saw in Flagstaff Arizona & Bowling Green, Kentucky<\/a>” blog post. The “Most Serious” ad image even has the identical bleed-through of the ink<\/a> from the ad on the other side. Give the preparers of this filing some credit – two of the other images come from different print editions – later ones – than what I have, e.g. the “How Much” image is from June<\/a> compared to my May version. The initial head scratcher for me was Carrboro<\/em>‘s utterly fuzzy Wednesday\u00a0date for the earmuffed horse image, with the all-caps month \/ day indecipherable even at 400% magnification<\/a>. If it is May 15, it undercuts this filing’s assertion that the ICE ads “began<\/em>” in Kentucky and that the horse ad was “eventually<\/em>” altered later<\/em><\/strong> in another city with a different image<\/a>.<\/p>\n I don’t leave that sort of thing to chance. Back when I compiled my my Jan 7, 2022 post on the Arizona\/Kentucky ICE ads, I copied down the online link for every single ad appearance in those two newspapers. So, once again utilizing a 7-day free trial access into the Newspapers.com site (I still don’t have the budget to pay for longer access), I entered in the link I had for Wednesday May 15, 1991, retrieved the scan, and uploaded it for all readers to clearly zoom in and read here<\/a>. Compare for yourself. Same fadeaway appearance to the top left and same blemishes<\/a>, same scanner lines in the top right<\/a>, same line straight through the middle of the page<\/a>, same newsprint feed pinholes<\/a> and other marks and ink bleed through at the bottom right<\/a> and left<\/a>.<\/p>\n This ad was never ‘eventually’ replaced by the man\/snowshovel image later<\/em>; this ad campaign did not start in Kentucky and move elsewhere, all<\/em><\/strong> of the genuine ICE ads<\/a> were first published simultaneously<\/a> on the same date, May 12, 1991<\/a>. The man\/snowshovel ads were never<\/em><\/strong> printed in Minnesota, they only appeared in North Dakota and, ten days after May 12th, in Arizona<\/a>.<\/p>\n What possible explanation could there be for actual ICE campaign newspaper images first seen in my GelbspanFiles blog later appearing anywhere<\/em> else, used in an accusation effort against the energy industry?? Answer: I’ve seen this once before<\/a>, and I dedicated a specific blog post to the situation: “The Opposition Reads GelbspanFiles \u2026 or something \u2026.<\/a>” In that blog post, referencing prior items, I peeled back several onion layers to this mess. In a nutshell explanation, it involves Dave Anderson of the Energy and Policy Institute, he’s the apparent inventor of the “UtilitiesKnew” Twitter hashtag back in July 2017<\/a> and there’s no mistaking what he was enslaved to for his cornerstone evidence to prove public utilities ‘deceived the public.’<\/a> (hold the thought for a few moments concerning my note about the crop line in that screencapture)<\/p>\n Yes, indeed. In 2017, Anderson undercut upwards of two decades of (false) accusations that the (non-profit co-op<\/a>) Western Fuels Association (WFA) was behind a directive for skeptic climate scientists to “reposition global warming,” pinning the memos instead to the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), “spearheading” the effort<\/a>, to use his own words. He was only technically<\/em> correct; EEI had authored that memo set, but as the late Ron Arnold showed in his 2016 “LeftExposed” piece<\/a> about Naomi Oreskes, EEI’s memo set was rejected<\/a> by the WFA. I additionally have it that WFA’s copy of the proposal was thrown out, unworthy of keeping on file<\/a>. Back in 1991 when asked directly about the matter, an EEI spokesperson said they weren’t spearheading anything<\/a>. That statement was corroborated elsewhere at the time<\/a>, too. [<\/strong><\/span>Author’s 12\/30\/24 addition: piling on – corroborated<\/a>.]<\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n So \u2014 minus any citation sources in this new lawsuit against the electric utility Duke Energy, what’s a good guess on the origin of the accusation with the new twist about using actual published ICE PR campaign ads? Upon finding out about this latest lawsuit that’s predictably enslaved to ye olde<\/em><\/a> “reposition global warming memos, I dropped that memo phrase into an internet search, and it popped up that phrase’s most recent instances (it still does as of Dec 17th<\/a>) in connection with this Carrboro<\/em> filing, including this guy’s Tweet\/X<\/a> repeating the “reposition global warming” false accusation connected with the real ICE ads – posted in the early morning of the same day the City of Carrboro announced their lawsuit. Put his words into an internet search<\/a> and you see what comes up 2nd from the top results: Dave Anderson<\/a>. \u2026 reposting<\/em><\/strong> that guy’s Tweet\/X<\/a>. [<\/strong>Author’s 12\/28\/24 addition:<\/span> Not a smart move on Anderson’s part – that fellow’s Tweet\/X images aren’t from the Carboro filing, they are – problematically, as I mentioned here<\/a> – from a 2020 BBC article<\/a>.]<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Need a bigger indicator how the Carrboro<\/em> filing’s unnamed sources for the “reposition global warming” memos and the actual published ICE advertorials very likely source from Dave Anderson? Watch this \u2014 in one of the first news items where I learned of this lawsuit over the weekend of Dec 7-8, I only briefly skimmed through this enviro-activist site’s Dec 5 report<\/a> to its third paragraph which linked to a DocumentCloud PDF version<\/a> of the lawsuit filing instead of the official city PDF file complaint. I stopped reading at that point and downloaded the DocCloud file. Upon revisiting this piece on Dec 17, I caught something I’d missed the first time, further down – they referred to the complaint again, but instead of redundantly linking to the DocCloud PDF file, they linked to an Energy and Policy Institute page<\/a>.\u00a0 Oops.\u00a0 I hadn’t thought to go looking for it, but should have guessed: Dave Anderson’s “Duke Energy Knew<\/a>” page, which dates from at least November, 21 2024<\/a>.<\/p>\n What’s in that report? A person need only do a screensearch for the words “Information Council,” in either his Duke PDF file or his Duke report online page, to spot the fatal problem.<\/p>\n The screensearch results numbers 3, 4, 5, and 6<\/a> are for the Newspapers.com images of the four Park City News<\/em> Bowling Green, Kentucky ICE ads in the Carrboro<\/em> filing. They are identical.<\/strong> Just way more blurry in the lawsuit file.<\/p>\n The #1 screensearch result is one line above Anderson’s source for the “reposition global warming” memos accusation. Who’s his source? Kert Davies’ Climate Files page<\/a>. That<\/em><\/strong> page: https:\/\/www.climatefiles.com\/denial-groups\/ice-ad-campaign\/<\/a> . The one with the dubiously cropped<\/strong><\/a>, never-published “Chicken Little” advertorial, which itself when magnified at its 2007-2022 page, reveals what the key fatal problem is<\/a> about relying on that page as smoking gun evidence of industry-orchestrated disinformation campaigns. Peel back one layer of that page problem and it is revealed that the worthless never-implemented memo directives \/ never-published horrid photocopy-degraded “Chicken Little” \/ “Doomsday Canceled” images<\/a> trace all the way back to the old Ozone Action group<\/a>. The place that Kert Davies worked at<\/a>, headed by John Passacantando; the same duo which headed Greenpeace USA<\/a>, where Davies uploaded ye olde<\/em> “victory will be achieved”<\/a> memos; the same duo who – after both leaving Greenpeace – were caught at the 2015-era NY AG’s offices in an effort to frame a skeptic climate scientist<\/a> of industry corruption; the same duo later caught framing Exxon in the same manner<\/a>.<\/p>\n One more thing: Dave Anderson has an “on” \/ “for” consistency problem<\/a>, a possible indicator he was fed information without ever fully observing it closely. This “on” \/ “for” problem traces through Kert Davies’ Climate Files<\/a> all the way back to the old Ozone Action group<\/a>. And Ross Gelbspan<\/a>. Clear as day in the fully readable versions of the actual ICE campaign advertorials, the spelled-out name was never anything but “Information Council FOR<\/em><\/strong><\/a> the Environment.”<\/p>\n Brilliant maneuver overall on Dave Anderson’s part in his latest “Duke Knew” report. But what’s missing in Anderson’s latest maneuver?<\/p>\n Zero<\/em><\/strong> mention of any “Chicken Little” advertorial. The – again<\/em> – cornerstone evidence<\/strong><\/a> in his 2017 report that “ElectricUtilitiesKnew.” The cornerstone evidence<\/strong> in his 2022 “SouthernCompanyKnew” report<\/a>.<\/p>\n See what just happened here? Dave Anderson, by omitting that never-published “Chicken Little” in his latest report and instead substituting actual published advertorials, just undercut nearly 30 years of the accusation about that specific advertorial, and 7 solid years of the Sher Edling law firm relying on that cropped<\/em><\/strong> advertorial<\/a> within their 21 total lawsuit filings, and he undercut both of his own prior “UtilitiesKnew” reports. Evidently, he can’t use that ‘evidence’ now because he figured out it is literally worthless.<\/p>\n But he can’t use the “reposition global warming” memos for exactly the same reason. If his work gets examined under broader investigation beyond what Senator Cruz and Rep Comer are currently looking into regarding climate litigation lawfare<\/a>, Cruz and Comer will say, “thanks a lot, Dave!<\/em>” All of the enviro-activist accusers which Dave Anderson just undermined might say the same thing, but with less sincerity.<\/p>\n If he indeed used my info about what was actually published<\/em> (give him credit if he did finally realize what is minimally admissible in court as verifiable evidence), well \u2026 what can I say except you’re welcome!<\/a> This Dec 4, 2024 filing is a bit different. But not different enough to save it from potentially being wiped out the same way the other 34 current “ExxonKnew” lawsuits could fall.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[164,158],"tags":[168,46,106],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17870"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=17870"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17870\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17989,"href":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17870\/revisions\/17989"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17870"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17870"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17870"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![](\"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Carrboro-reposit.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![](\"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Carrboro-ICE-ads.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014
\nThere\u2019s always more<\/em><\/strong>: I didn’t catch it while writing my 2022 blog post<\/a> mentioning his “Southern Knew” report, but I did while compiling the above post: Dave Anderson completely undercut<\/strong> a major line of Al Gore’s – and everybody else’s: The \u201colder, less-educated men\u201d \/ \u201cyounger, low-income women\u201d Accusation Bites the Dust. Big Time.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"