Author Archives: Russell Cook

About Russell Cook

Russell Cook is a semi-retired graphic artist. His collection of articles and blogs about the Gelbspan/Gore/Ozone Action/Greenpeace accusation can be seen here: http://gelbspanfiles.com/?page_id=86

Summary for Policy Makers (SPM): the Sher Edling law firm

Posted on by

On Oct 7, 2024, news reports (e.g. Thomas Catenacci’s “Anti-Energy Lawfare“) described the same-day release of Senator Ted Cruz’s / Rep James Comer’s investigation analysis Sher Edling, the San Francisco law firm that is – by my current count – ‘boilerplate-copying’ 18 “ExxonKnew”-style lawsuits from one place to the next, and ‘assisting’ in 4 others.

Elections matter. At the time of the Oct 7 news reports, pre-general election, the U.S. Senate was in the minority. With the Senate now firmly set in the majority and with Senator Cruz having subpoena power, that changes the situation. While his and the joint investigation with Rep Comer focuses principally on the dark money funding of Sher Edling, that focus could broaden to cover what I consider a far bigger set of fatal faults surrounding that law firm. So, first is my brief number lineup, followed by more details below for each, which include screencapture image links and blog post links supporting the particular items at greater depth: 1) provably false accusations of industry-corruption behavior. 2) Hidden original citation source. 3) Subsequent text omissions. 4) deceptively cropped images. 5) The Naomi Oreskes Problem. 6) The Dr Willie Soon false accusation. 7) Matt Edling and Victor Sher. 8) (stay tuned, I’ll likely add more to this post at a later date) Continue reading →

The Political Suicide of Pushing “Reckless Climate Endangerment”

Posted on by

It’s a 100% certain bet that none of the folks at the Public Citizen ‘consumer advocacy organization’ read my GelbspanFiles blog about the 100% certain inevitable crash of their prior ‘prosecute for Clima-Homicide™’ proposal (my post got even wider worldwide viewing as a guest post at WUWT, complete with a handy ‘you people that stupid?’ meme image at the top). Otherwise, they would not have come up with this announcement on October 15, (er … hold that thought until the very end of this post) October 17, 2024 regarding their latest proposal idea to prosecutors:

“We’re building the case for criminal prosecution of Big Oil brick by brick. Here is the first “prosecution memo” that lays out the case for filing, and winning, criminal charges for “reckless endangerment.” The law is clear. Barriers are only political.”

What the law is actually fundamentally clear about is that when presenting a case to a judge, the evidence you present must actually support your accusation. If it does not . . . the case is dismissed. If you’ve got no alternative evidence, that’s the end of the line on your effort.  Period.  What these people at the Public Citizen group are either oblivious to – or actually know but hope nobody notices – is that their ‘evidence’ for the claim that the fossil fuel industry ran disinformation campaigns in collusion with skeptic scientist ‘shills’ is literally worthless. Public Citizen is not building a case ‘brick-by-brick,’ either, they appear to be doing nothing more than copying line-by-line from what already serves as ‘cornerstone evidence’ in one form or another about ‘industry-led disinformation campaigns’ in basically all of the currently filed “ExxonKnew” U.S. lawsuits, from Hawaii to Puerto Rico and points in between. I’m not exaggerating. What Public Citizen is doing is committing political suicide by again emphasizing the fatal fault plaguing the collective effort to accuse Big Oil of running disinformation campaigns to deceive the public. Continue reading →

Multnomah v. Exxon, version 2.0: Oregon County Suing Exxon Now Suing Art Robinson’s Oregon Petition Project

Posted on by

On Oct 4, Multnomah County amended their filing to add a gas utility company as a defendant, along with Art Robinson’s Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM); more specifically, as I will detail below, his Oregon Petition Project. My response: Oh, brother. Redux. I already dissected the spectacular blunders surrounding the 2023 Multnomah v Exxon lawsuit; that bizarre filing effort looks like little more than a cloddish plagiarized copy of Puerto Rico v Exxon, which itself was so maladroitly cobbled together that I needed to do a two-part dissection of that one, plus I had to place an additional detail three months back at the end of part 2. I didn’t cover Puerto Rico‘s sections mentioning Art Robinson’s Oregon Petition Project because my two dissection posts were long enough already. I’ll admit error on failing to mention it now, it involves one more problem potentially tying their ineptness to that of the supposedly unassociated San Francisco Sher Edling law firm and their boilerplate-copy lawsuit filings. Since somebody within the Oregon law firms seems particularly bent on pointing an arrow the size of Texas at their inexplicable apparent plagiarism blunder … well, let’s now examine that angle and where it blows up in their faces, in four distinct ways. The full amended complaint is here.      Continue reading →

Pay the Man … Another $50 Grand

Posted on by

For the benefit of any new readers here unfamiliar with the people I cover, first and foremost — the man I’m referring to is the ex-head of Greenpeace USA, John Passacantando, who (with former subordinate Kert Davies, it turns out – *ahem* – his subordinate and him) was behind a false accusation seen in the New York Times and widely repeated elsewhere in early 2015 claiming skeptic climate scientist Dr Willie Soon was paid dark money to spread disinformation.

Passacantando left Greenpeace in January 2009 without ever fully explaining why or what his next venture was going to be. But after that time, within his mystery “Our Next Economy LLC” company, he’s amassed just short of $20,000,000. I just discovered I needed to ad another $50,000 to that tally, which is still incomplete without current year IRS 990 income disclosures. While this new added amount might look like chump change compared to his main growing pile, there are more onion layers to peel back around this event. Let’s start with how this might not be just a grave problem for Passacantando, it could be a “Lisa Graves” problem for him, the Sustainable Markets Foundation, and the Park Foundation, which only draws even more attention to the question: what is he up to, and was his odd name choice for his LLC actually an indicator of his plans, which he’s seemingly still treating like some kind of state secret?   Continue reading →

California v Exxon v.2 — the plastics waste/pollution crisis lawsuit’s “Chicken Little” problem

Posted on by

There’s some irony to California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s 9/23/24 lawsuit speaking of “the plastic waste and pollution crisis” while only mentioning the other ‘crisis du jour’ “climate change” four times (the first instance is actually just a reference to a Canadian organization’s name). The lawsuit makes no comparison to alleged deception by the fossil fuel industry over their ‘knowledge’ of the harm of human-induced global warming. So, what possible connection(s) could there be to the efforts to smear skeptic climate scientists as ‘shills’ working for Exxon? Allow me to illustrate. Be sure to click on each link, the screencapture images will set up the big problem for AG Bonta.  Continue reading →

The prima facie Case for ‘Industry Disinfo Campaigns’ Implodes — AGAIN.

Posted on by

It’s a case study on how the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits can implode – no matter where and when you land in this accusation effort hurled by enviro-activists, it always traces back to the usual suspects.

What I find astounding regarding anyone prominent regurgitating the accusation about “crooked skeptic climate scientists” / “fossil fuel industry disinformation campaigns” is how they expect no readers to ever question anything they say. It’s a reckless high wire act, potentially devastating to their credibility if any part of their narrative starts to unravel. Allow me to explain, using the example of the hapless “environmental / energy policy expert” Leah Stokes, who could not keep her mouth shut about the “peer-reviewed” paper she co-authored which hurled the accusation that the “fossil fuel industry ran a disinformation campaign to – her words – “reposition global warming as theory and not fact.”  Continue reading →

Summary for Policymakers: Naomi Oreskes

Posted on by

If you say another person is a liar and can’t keep their personal stories straight, no matter what the topic is, you can’t hurl this as a drive-by shot, you must extensively prove it, because your own reputation now depends on it. People might regret demanding proof if it then sends them into extensive reading, but that’s the price they pay to become fully informed. If they dismiss the mountain of evidence as “too deep into the weeds,” individuals like “Merchants of Doubt” documentary movie star/book author Naomi Oreskes pray for this kind of dismissal — ceding the moral high ground to her.

So, first, a brief number lineup, followed by more details for each, with screencapture image links to back up my specific points, and blog post links which back up what I point out in deep detail:

1. Oreskes’ science consensus  2. Ties to Al Gore  3. False accusation about the “reposition global warming memos”  4. Fatal problems with her “Merchants of Doubt” documentary  5. Her two mutually exclusive ‘discovery’ of who the doubt merchants were  6. Oreskes – the communist .. or something  7. Why would lawyers hire her?  8. Her clumsy amici curiae efforts & global warming/cooling inconsistency  9. The Fred Singer email chain problem  10. The 3 little words she omitted from LBJ’s 1965 speech  11.  RICO-Teering, Oreskes-Style Continue reading →

“Merchant of Disinformation” – the movie. Part 4

Posted on by

I can’t emphasize this enough: Naomi Oreskes is presented at congressional hearings and elsewhere as an expert on so-called ‘fossil fuel industry disinformation campaigns’ – her own biography introductions at the hearings imply as much. Investigators / objective reporters / law firms representing the defendants in the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits / congressional staffers can either accept what she says or what is said about her work without question, essentially enabling her to continually to get away with what she’s been doing since 2003, or they can deeply cross examine her work for the first time ever, to find out if there’s any actual merit to the assertions she’s made over the last two decades, such as those contained within in her 2015 “Merchants of Doubt” documentary movie. As I’ve shown in Parts 1, 2 and 3, her movie – supposedly exposing fossil fuel industry deception downplaying the harm of global warming – has every appearance itself of deceptively impugning the integrity of those criticizing the idea of catastrophic man-caused global warming. She and her associates fare no better in Part 4 here, the the overarching problem of the movie being her and her associates’ psychological projection hole they’ve dug for themselves that begins to resemble one the virtual size of an open pit mine.

It’s quite a slog to go through this movie. I’m doing it so objective reporters / energy company defendant law firms / potential prosecutors don’t have to. Continue reading →

“Merchant of Disinformation” – the movie. Part 3

Posted on by

Not only is Naomi Oreskes the author of the 2010 “Merchants of Doubt” book / star of the 2015 same-name documentary movie, she is also now apparently trying to make some kind of inroads into influencing SCOTUS clerks, if this August 15, 2024 “Interview: Science historian Naomi Oreskes schools the Supreme Court on climate change” article from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is to be believed. There’s no indication in the article that she’s ‘schooled’ anybody there yet, but she evidently has ‘schooled’ global warming lawfare lawyers – she’s on retainer with the law firm directly handling / assisting with 22 (at the time of this blog publication) of the current U.S. “ExxonKnew”-style lawsuits. She has apparently also had some kind of influence with no less than Pope Francis.

She’s been skating on thin ice ever since her foray into the issue, but via sheer blind luck of never facing anyone questioning a word she says, she hasn’t yet fallen right through. When major high-level discussions occur regarding how, where, and why the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits should proceed, her name as an ‘expert’ on the topic is certain to be mentioned in some form. This actually already happened once, where her “Merchants” movie was brought up within the 2015-era NY state Attorney General’s office. That’s why it’s crucial for any clerks for the ruling majority of the Supreme Court to be aware, along with any other people involved in the court system – law firms for the defendants in the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits especially – or people involved in the Republican side of the U.S. congress, of how massively vulnerable she is on her assertions about the climate issue and what she terms ‘industry-led disinformation campaigns.’

Continue reading →

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico v. Exxon

Posted on by

A.k.a. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Exxon. Bad enough that a johnny-come-lately law firm with no prior climate damages lawsuit issue experience blindly jumped onto the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits bandwagon in late 2022 representing multiple municipalities of Puerto Rico. It was one of the more ineptly done filings I’ve seen in this lawfare litigation effort, as I showed in my two-part dissection of that lawsuit. Bad enough that a literally redundant lawsuit was filed even more ineptly just over a year later solely for the Puerto Rico city of San Juan. Ineptly – because it was almost a literal copy ‘n paste of the first lawsuit by another law firm which had no climate issue experience whatsoever, as I showed in my dissection of that one. Redundant – because San Juan was already covered in the first lawsuit.

Now we have ‘redundant redux,’ in the form of no less than the San Francisco law firm Sher Edling attempting to get in on the act with this Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico July 15th, 2024 filing. Continue reading →