Just askin’ — if it can be argued that …
- the overall issue of catastrophic man-caused global warming is a case study of how far-left enviro-activists would rather resort to character assassination (which the mainstream media never questions) of their critics rather than support their declarations about the ‘settled science’ with superior science-based evidence, …
- and if the outright majority of the 25+ “Exxon Knew”-style / boilerplate-repeated lawsuits are a case study of how the character assassination efforts are enslaved to only two sets of never-implemented ‘leaked memos’ evidence to support the accusation that crooked industry executives and crooked skeptic climate scientist ‘shills’ colluded to deceive the public that the ‘settled science’ wasn’t settled, …
- then is a Friend of the Court brief intended to support one of those lawsuits, apparently ineptly copied from two nearly identical prior briefs which repeated that worthless ‘memo sets’ evidence, a case study on how hand all of those potentially fatal problems to the energy company defendant lawyers on a silver platter? Continue reading
Just askin’, another in my series of posts asking questions that not only the inquisitive public and unbiased reporters should be asking, but also the law firms working for the defendant energy companies in the current 25 “Exxon Knew”-style global warming damages cost recovery lawsuits. Hat tip to Charles Rotter at WUWT for alerting me to Energy in Depth’s 5/13/21 report, “Bombshell: Naomi Oreskes On Retainer With Plaintiffs’ Law Firm.” Charles further points out that a same-day paper authored by Oreskes and co-researcher Geoffrey Supran (that Supran) had the note at the bottom, “The authors have no other relevant financial ties and declare no competing interests.”
Being on retainer with a law firm handling no less than 15 major global warming lawsuits is not a relevant financial tie, or at least minimally a competing interest, a.k.a. a conflict of interest??
But the problems and the questions don’t end there for Oreskes, Continue reading
Just askin’, before the Big Tech effort to censor inconvenient questions spreads as far as into blogs like this. While the largest companies on the defendant side of all the “ExxonKnew”-style lawsuits are still exploring legal technicalities paths concerning changes of venue, what happens if the smaller energy companies’ law firms start pulling all the loose threads in the accusation where it’s implied that a certain set of ‘leaked memos’ with the awkwardly worded strategy goal to “reposition global warming” is proof that Big Coal & Oil had a corrupt pay-for-performance arrangement with skeptic scientist ‘liars-for-hire’? That memo set is presented as ‘evidence’ in the majority of the current “Exxon Knew”-style lawsuits, e.g. the most recent among them, Annapolis v BP’s paragraph 116. What will it indicate if efforts are made to quash those lawyers’ statements about the faults they find with that accusation? If legal analyst voices far bigger than mine start exploring whether that accusation is indeed a form of criminal libel/slander, what could the public interpret from an even more concerted censorship effort to silence those bigger voices? Continue reading
Regarding Naomi Oreskes’ “Merchants of Doubt” co-author also being on a similar first-name, or any-name basis with Gore ….. not so much, it seems.
I pointed to Oreskes’ little name-drop in only fleeting fashion in my June 17, 2020 blog post. Time now to explore it further as yet another example of a widespread problem with the entire ‘crooked skeptic climate scientists’ accusation: pull on even the smallest of loose threads in that accusation, and the fabric of the overall accusation starts to unravel in multiple directions instead of cinch together more tightly. Continue reading
So far, ordinary citizens can get away with the response “just asking” when chastised for questioning the inconsistencies in narratives about man-caused global warming, but maybe not much longer if that starts falling into what ‘Big Tech’ vilifies as spreading misinformation. Regarding other controversial political issues in recent weeks, credit the collective far-left with cleverly concocting the propaganda notion that citizens questioning ‘established facts’ in the mainstream media about the U.S. presidential election or the January 6th riot at the U.S. Capitol might be dangerous radicals so hopelessly enslaved to conspiracy theories that they need to be re-educated. How long will it be until it’s insinuated that anyone who wonders why details in the global warming issue don’t line up right may be part of the unstable fanatic population posing a threat to democracy? Oh, wait, that’s already happened.
Maybe that kind of reasoning is meets with little opposition in the unreal world of news media / social media, but in the very real world of litigation (if the 20+ “Exxon Knew”-style global warming lawsuits resolve legal technicalities of whether they fall under Federal or state court jurisdiction), the law firms hired by energy company defendants will start questioning the often-repeated accusation from Al Gore that their clients colluded with skeptic climate scientists in disinformation campaigns designed to undercut the certainty of man-caused global warming. Perhaps enviro-activists may try to spin that as “Big Oil’s defense lawyers push right-wing conspiracy theories” for the biased news media to repeat, but that intimidation tactic to shut down questioning is not likely to work out well at all within the confines of any courtroom.
Just askin.’ That’s what I do at this blog, I detail myriad inconsistencies and other problems with the widespread, multi-decade accusation about the fossil fuel industry allegedly paying skeptic climate scientists to participate in sinister misinformation efforts designed to undercut the supposedly ‘settled’ understanding about catastrophic human-induced global warming. Examining troublesome situations and asking why forthright explanations for them aren’t seemingly readily available isn’t a crime, and knee-jerk reactions to label such examinations as “misinformation” (i.e., violations worthy of censorship which should also be forwarded to organizations undertaking relentless unethical, extremist regime-style persecution) would be foolishly embarrassing for anyone labeling them that way; if troublesome-looking situations can be ultimately cleared up, then it is in everyone’s best interest that the questions be fully answered. Continue reading
This requires two setup points. First, in my February 13, 2020 blog post titled “Joke: ‘Why did the Greenpeace USA Executive Director cross the Road?’,” I covered how the founder of the long forgotten environmental group Ozone Action subsequently merged his little group into Greenpeace USA and took over there as Executive Director, only to inexplicably step down eight years later into what looked like the oblivion of an utterly inconsequential, one-man operation apparently pointlessly named “Our Next Economy LLC” which had practically no internet presence outside of his rather bland blog page ….. while getting, as late as what’s seen in a 2017 IRS 990 form, at least $2 million in income. The main question arising out of all the details in that post is whether his long-term promulgation of a worthless set of leaked industry memos, which gained their first major ongoing media traction in his dinky Ozone Action group as a go-to source for indicting skeptic climate scientists of industry corruption, is being facilitated into the latest set of global warming lawsuits, e.g. the two month-old Maui v Sunoco one, via millions of dark money dollars poured into his mystery Our Next Economy LLC operation.
The second setup point is that the U.S. Government’s “Paycheck Protection Program” was created to help shuttered small businesses to keep their workers employed during the current virus pandemic situation.
So now, I could have actually titled this post as “Joke: What do you get when you cross a small business bailout loan with a one-man operation swimming in millions in cash?” The thing that investigators need to ask is, what on Earth is going on here? Continue reading
Using my online platform here to have a link I can place in my main Twitter account to show who blocks me from their Twitter accounts, for what reasons. Images are from most recent to oldest, click each to enlarge; my tweets which apparently triggered the blocks are under each one. Combine this with my dissections of Ross Gelbspan’s ‘industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists’ accusation, and it becomes ever more obvious that supporters of the global warming issue do all they can to stifle fair, open debate. Continue reading
Just askin’. Key points to remember: global warming alarmists always spiral back to a single bit of evidence to support their notion that skeptic climate scientists are ‘paid industry shills’, namely the “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” phrase that garnered Ross Gelbspan a second career (a phrase he never established to be a top-down industry directive), and that phrase was ‘obtained by Ozone Action and by Ross Gelbspan’ – Ozone Action being manned back then by the two most recently departed executive directors of Greenpeace USA, Radford and Passacantando, and by Greenpeace’s recently departed head of its ExxonSecrets wing, Davies. Continue reading
Got sidetracked last week with the extended situation surrounding what I wrote about at RedState that’s otherwise a bit outside the narrow scope of this blog. But I will point out one question within the scope here that I posed in my piece, which is certainly worthy of posing to any authoritative person, group or other entity – Ross Gelbspan among them – who claims skeptic climate scientists ‘fabricate nonsense’:
If your position is that global warming skeptic scientists operate under guidance from industries opposing CO2 regulation, are you prepared to provide specific proof of improper payments to those scientists, and specific proof of faults in the scientists’ resulting reports that are obvious indications of industry-guided science errors?