I’ve uploaded Energy in Depth’s “docviewer” file of the judge’s dismissal as a PDF file<\/a> into my GelbspanFiles media library which enables me to attach a page number extension to the end that can take readers to the full context of each page.<\/p>\n First item: PDF file page 31 \/ print page 30<\/a>:<\/p>\n Plaintiff argues that Defendants are engaged in a \u201ccontinuing tort\u201d in the form of a purported conspiracy akin to those alleged against tobacco companies. This theory fails as well. Plaintiff does not allege a continuing tort.<\/strong> Rather, Plaintiff relies on allegations of disconnected acts<\/strong> and statements by various entities\u2014some of which are not even defendants here\u2014in different times and places.<\/strong> Far from being \u201ccontinuing,\u201d Plaintiff\u2019s allegations fall into at least two general categories: (1)<\/strong> alleged denials of climate science in the 1990s<\/strong> and 2000s, and (2) \u201cgreenwashing\u201d statements<\/strong> in more recent years. The only apparent common thread is that these are statements and acts with which Plaintiff disagrees …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The key there is “denials of climate science in the 1990<\/em>s. Specifically, Charleston<\/em>‘s citation of the 1991 “Information Council for the Environment” public relations campaign memo set (with the standard requisite effort to tie particular sentences<\/a> alleged to be in those memos to specific newspaper advertorial<\/a> scans), and Charleston<\/em>‘s citation of the 1-day workshop discussions<\/a> that were summarized into the 1998 “victory will be achieved” memo set<\/a>.<\/p>\n Judge Young aptly noted there can’t be a continuing disinformation action. What he was unaware of was that the ‘disinformation action’ never happened in the first place.<\/p>\n Set aside whatever bizarro, ill-advised enviro-appeasement action<\/a> the industry is doing today, that’s irrelevant<\/em><\/strong>. The “reposition global warming” memos’ strategy and audience target goals were never implemented<\/a> in any form<\/a> anywhere by any fossil fuel entity; the “victory will be achieved” memos were also never implemented<\/a> (never implemented!<\/em><\/a>). A claim about a particular action resulting from a suggestion cannot stand as evidence if the suggestion was never implemented<\/a>. It is just that simple. Pile on top of that how Exxon, et al<\/em>. could not have possibly known for decades about catastrophic global warming in the face of all the reports about runaway global cooling<\/strong><\/a>. Cooling<\/em><\/strong><\/a>!<\/p>\n Second item: PDF file page 35 \/ print page 34<\/a> (last paragraph):<\/p>\n Complaint affirmatively alleges that the dangers posed to the climate by fossil fuel use have been well-documented and publicized since at least the 1960s. … in 1965, \u201cPresident Lyndon B. Johnson\u2019s Science Advisory Committee\u2019s Environmental Pollution Panel<\/strong> reported that a 25% increase in carbon dioxide concentrations could occur by the year 2000\u201d and listed numerous expected side effects that would be caused by \u201cglobal warming.\u201d<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Judge Young was referring to this<\/em><\/strong> paragraph in Charleston<\/em>, PDF 62 \/ pg 58, paragraph #58<\/a>. The fatal problem with that paragraph is right there:<\/p>\n Like I said in my dissection of Rhode Island v. Chevron<\/em><\/a>, those three little dots<\/a>, an elipsis<\/strong>, implies a large amount of unnecessary text is omitted. What text was missing in President Johnson’s speech text words there? Only three words; “radioactive materials and<\/em><\/strong><\/span>.” Include<\/strong> those three words in his speech text, and they totally undermine the entire notion that the exclusive driver of global warming was carbon dioxide. There’s not a single enviro-activist out there calling for an end of greenhouse-inducing radioactive material emissions into the atmosphere. Who was it who first saw the need to omit<\/strong> those words from the speech? Naomi Oreskes<\/a>. Who’s the law firm handling Charleston<\/em>? Sher Edling<\/a>. Who’s on retainer with Sher Edling? Naomi Oreskes<\/a>.<\/p>\n Naomi Oreskes omits quite a few critical facts in her narratives, it turns out.<\/p>\n \u2022 In her ‘expert’ claims<\/a> that the “Informed Citizens for the Environment” PR campaign operated under the directive to “reposition global warming as theory,” she omits how that name was never used<\/a> and that the directive itself – as I’ve already noted above – was never used. Kill one lawsuit at a time via some legal technicality, two more will take its place<\/a> circumventing those technicalities, but they’ll still be enslaved to the same literally worthless ‘industry evidence.’ Obliterate their core ‘evidence,’ and the enviro-activists will be reduced to filing more pathetically emotional and irrationally desperate efforts featuring climate-terrified youths<\/a> or imperiled farmer victims<\/a>.<\/p>\n The disinformation option about “crooked skeptic climate scientists” will be out.\u00a0 Dead.<\/strong>\u00a0 A stake finally driven through its heart.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" While it was great news from the Energy in Depth website on August 7th that South Carolina circuit court Judge Roger Young dismissed Charleston v Brabham Oil on jurisdictional \/ statute of limitations \/ and other angles, the opportunity to … Continue reading ![](\"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Oreskes-Charleston-three-dot-elipsis.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n\u2022 In her claims<\/a> that the notorious “Chicken Little” newspaper advertorial proves the existence of industry disinformation campaigns, she omits how the ad is always cropped at the bottom<\/a> which proves it was never published anywhere<\/a>.
\n\u2022 In her claims<\/a> that scholars could read the “reposition global warming” memos<\/a> – and other docs<\/a> supposedly related to the PR campaign – at the American Meteorological Society’s Washington D.C. archives, she omits how those docs were never at the AMS DC offic<\/a>e for anyone to read.
\n\u2022 And in her claims<\/a> that she learned at an obscure science conference who the ‘merchants of doubt’ in this climate issue, she omits how the use of a time-travel machine<\/a> was needed for that event to have taken place the way she describes it<\/a>.<\/p>\n