The inept handlers of City & County Of Honolulu & Honolulu Board Of Water Supply v. Sunoco Lp point arrows the size of Texas at where the real conspiracy efforts to deceive the public can be found in the climate issue. Continue reading
Author Archives: Russell Cook
Brief Of Amici Curiae, Brulle .. Oreskes .. & Supran Reduxes 0.5 & 3.5 — the Oakland/San Francisco & Delaware versions
What I need is an Exxon Brothers-funded staff to help me stay ahead on these things. In my series of Naomi Oreskes et al. Friends of the Court dissections, I literally did not know about their two briefs filed on 3/20/19 and 4/21/2022, respectively, thus my consolidated dissections of them here in this post, out of sequence on order of appearance. As I minimally noted in my in my just-prior blog post dissection of her most recent court brief she filed to the Supreme Court, her Oakland & San Francisco & Delaware briefs compound the problems with her Supreme Court brief.
While I’m not holding my breath on my efforts resulting in a noticeable outcome, I’ve done all I can, aided with very helpful guest post outlets, to alert influential people on how it would be best for everyone to set aside considerations of court jurisdiction / legislative policy passed in state houses over climate policy, and instead focus on whether Boulder v Suncor – and by default the rest of the “ExxonKnew” cases, should be in courts at all when their accusations about ‘industry-orchestrated disinfo campaigns employing skeptic climate scientists‘ are provably without merit, promulgated by a highly suspect little clique of enviro-activists.
For the ‘influential people’ I speak of to finally put a stop to all the pointless, political agenda-driven climate litigation lawfare efforts, those people need bulletproof evidence, and plenty of it. What I will show in this blog post demonstrates just how dubious the latest Naomi Oreskes et al. outlier’ brief to SCOTUS is. Continue reading
Brief Of Amici Curiae, Brulle .. Oreskes .. & Supran Redux 6 — the Supreme Court version
Big, big, big mistake. Basically all of the other Friends of the Court briefs on either side of this big lawsuit protest filed by Suncor Energy at the Supreme Court – against plaintiffs suing them for climate damages in City / County of Boulder / San Miguel County v. Suncor – tend to dwell on the esoteric discussions of whether the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits are a state or Federal matter or if climate policy should be left to state legislatures, while apparently overlooking the deal killer that can wipe out all of these lawsuits and imperil the climate issue itself. Naomi Oreskes’ amici curiae here and all her previous similar ones point an arrow the size of Texas at that fatal fault. I’ll explain in this blog post. Continue reading
List of ‘Weak Links’ Accusers for the “Crooked Skeptic Climate Scientists” Accusation — Summary for Policymakers
This list will be an ongoing compilation, with updates noted in red, similar to my list of global warming lawsuits. Additions to this list will be ref’d in this top paragraph.
These are the chain of people one increment back from the main promulgators who’ve pushed the false accusation about ‘shill skeptic scientist on Big Oil’s payroll who were directed to reposition global warming as theory‘ ever since the 1990s. I’ve mentioned their names on many occasions in prior blog posts on the way these individuals could fold like cheap suits while under oath at investigative hearings, when hit with any inquiries on how they support their accusations and who exactly their sources are for the specific accusations they were taught to dutifully regurgitate. I’ve even made a humorous meme image to convey how lame they are and how willing they might be to turn ‘states evidence’ under tough prosecutorial proceedings simply to reduce the jail time or civil court penalties they’d be facing.
It’s likely that U.S. Senate and House congressional investigators / Department of Justice investigators / energy company defendants’ law firms / objective news reporters may not recognize many of the names below and thus would not be aware of the benefits of hitting these weak links people with the toughest possible questions, in order to get to the absolute bottom of where the utterly false accusation originates about ‘skeptic climate scientists being paid to lie in disinformation campaigns.’ The whole accusation, 1991 to the present day, is a house of cards, a Jenga tower on the edge of total collapse. The top-most promulgators of the accusation may likely plead the 5th, and thus forestall the collapse. All it will take to bring it all down is for any one of the weak links to cave into pressure on what they actually know. Continue reading
Al Gore’s ‘Corrupt Climate Scientists’ Slur — Summary for Policymakers
It implodes, no matter where anyone starts to look at it beyond just quick glances into it. The slur itself is the second of just two pillars of support holding up the climate issue, namely 1) “the science is settled on how burning fossil fuels is the main driver of catastrophic global warming” and 2) “therefore, nobody has any obligation to listen to industry-paid shill scientists who’ve been directed to deceive the public through efforts to reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.” Al Gore’s 2006 “An Inconvenient Truth” movie exemplifies that, he spent the first 72 minutes of the film with his ‘the science is settled’ claims, wrapping up all of that with a reference to Naomi Oreskes’ December 2004 Science magazine 100% consensus figure, which is not true in the least. Then he used that as a segue to imply a tiny handful of skeptic climate scientists were paid industry money to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” – he spelled out that exact phrase full screen in red letters, comparing it to a tobacco industry memo title. The late Washington Examiner columnist / “Undue Influence” book author writer Ron Arnold proved at his June 2016 LeftExposed piece how the ‘leaked memo directive’ containing that phrase was never implemented by anybody.
The elemental problem here, is that few people are aware of how vulnerable that second pillar is to total collapse, and how it not only imperils Vice President Gore’s legacy as a ‘climate crisis truth-teller,’ it imperils the entire climate issue. The key to getting the fatal crack started in that second pillar is to put Al Gore under oath and begin by asking him two questions: first, where did he get that ‘leaked industry memo’ phrase, and second – more importantly – did he ever make any efforts to check the veracity of it? Continue reading
“The [climate issue] perception gap is an information problem”
Ingmar Rentzhog’s August 16, 2026 Forbes article “Why The 89% Climate Majority Keeps Losing” asserts that while polling shows a supposed 89% majority of people approve action to stop climate change, this ‘majority’ is seemingly unaware of how they have the public pressure power to get such action done. With particular regard to what he suggests is the disparity between having power and then using it, he offered this basic truism:
The perception gap is an information problem, and information problems can be fixed.
Yes, the climate issue problem absolutely can be fixed with more information … just in the diametrically opposite way he’s proposing. Continue reading
How Do We Keep Climate Propaganda Journalism Alive?
Within my March 23 blog post blog post about what appears to be enviro-activists’ gaslighting efforts to claim ‘reports on the climate issue are fewer than in prior years,’ I described how I created a daily email alert out of the Google organization for any story containing the words “global warming.” In predictable fashion, an article which is likely an outgrowth of the above gaslighting effort was one among those recent results, written by two ‘journalism professors’ for the Neiman Reports ‘leadership in journalism‘ website. Just from its title alone in the email alert – “What Is Happening to Climate Journalism?” – I could make an educated guess about its biased slant, and after reading its subheading “Amid layoffs and industry belt-tightening, quality of coverage, not quantity, becomes even more important,” I could guess with more precision what its massive irony was going to be within the article. Hence my facetious blog post title, a dig at why the ‘journalism professors’ ought to hand in their university resignations and sincerely apologize to all the students they misled over their teaching tenures – starting with the false premise right within their own article title.
“Climate Journalism.” Ever wonder why there are not entire fraternities of reporters specializing in …. Astronomical journalism? Chemistry journalism? Physics journalism? Continue reading
“If your ironclad proof that Big Oil secretly knew their products cause global warming is a leaked industry memo … why would you alter it to make it look more plausible?”
The pushers of climate litigation lawfare keep bizarrely paying out enough rope to hang themselves. The latest instance over the span of just the last eight weeks comes courtesy of the Public Citizen liberal climate policy advocacy group …. and they basically nail themselves to the wall along with every other major promulgator who is enslaved to the never-implemented “reposition global warming as theory” ‘leaked industry memo.’ Continue reading
“What did we miss?” — Open Letter to the Editor of The New York Times
I view the entire climate issue as completely unsustainable; the collective thing is based on disinformation, from the notion that the ‘science is settled’ about deadly catastrophic man-caused global warming, to the feeling that ‘Exxon knew that but instead created disinformation campaigns to deceive the public about what they knew.’ It’s like viewing a crumbling building with spreading cracks and wondering how soon the whole thing goes down, or like a topped dam where it’s a wonder it hasn’t collapsed yet. Or perhaps it’s akin to how Titanic builder Thomas Andrews must have felt upon fully comprehending the situation in front of him in the remaining minutes of April 14, 1912 – things are still nearly level at the moment, but it’s purely a matter of time when the existing damage starts bringing in fatal amounts of accumulation that cannot be stopped. The climate issue will sink, it is a mathematical certainty. The self-inflected damage was actually done long ago to seal its fate, when its arrogant pushers decided to use character assassination and disinformation as a tactic to counter critics while hoping nobody would question that maneuver.
I just don’t yet know which ‘iceberg’ incident will be the one to begin the process of sending the issue to the bottom. Meanwhile, I try to give that iceberg a nudge toward this looming colossus recklessly speeding straight toward its inevitable doom. Continue reading
Connecticut v. Exxon — the Sher Edling connection
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