While I place this 2017-filed lawsuit at the very last (currently) #46 spot in my “ExxonKnew” lawsuits list, and it barely qualifies to be on the list from having only one of the standard four accusation elements regularly seen in these lawfare filings, it nevertheless has details which Federal investigators and/or the defendants in this case and the defendants across the board in these lawsuits might want to examine at a deeper level than I can. Where there’s smoke, there may well be fire; I point out the problems in these but that’s essentially the tip of the proverbial iceberg in this whole lawfare litigation dating back to its present day iteration origins. Continue reading
Tag Archives: Kert Davies
City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v Rex Tillerson, et al.
Amazing what a person can find after doing deeper digging. Concerning the climate issue, a person does not have to be a climatologist or a rocket scientist to undertake this. The legacy news media journalists have not done anything of the sort, thus the perception persists that there’s a ‘growing number of lawsuits being filed to hold energy company polluters accountable for damaging the climate.’ This particular New Jersey-based Birmingham v Tillerson does little more than reinforce what I suggest – there isn’t any such ‘growing number,’ but instead we just have the single John Passacantando, Kert Davies, et al. [dba Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action / Our Next Economy / CIC ] v. Exxon & any other applicable energy companies; a seemingly basic template dutifully regurgitated in one form or another, tailor-made to fit whatever locality chooses to use it. While the defendants in Birmingham are just individual people, this one still fits my standard of being an “ExxonKnew” lawsuit. Maybe it gets redundant dissecting the fatal faults in these, but this effort serves the purpose of illustrating why we need investigations of how these are assembled … so that we can hold the background people accountable for the actual disinformation they spread in the climate issue. Continue reading
“The ‘Victory Memo’ Is the ‘Ugliest’ Document in Climate Denial History” – NOT
In my (technically) Part 1 post about the United Nations seemingly channeling the worthless 1998 “victory will be achieved” memo set almost as though someone at the UN was making an inside joke about the memo, I emphasized at the outset how that memo was no more than the second-best ‘evidence’ the collective enviro-activists mob has ever for their accusations about the fossil fuel industry orchestrating efforts to deceive the public about the ‘harm’ of global warming. It’s amazing how that mob made a mountain out of a mole hill over what was nothing more than a single-day workshop effort to propose efforts on informing the public about faulty angles of the push to get the Kyoto Treaty ratified in the U.S. Senate. When the people behind the memo effort finally fully realized the Kyoto Treaty was never going to be ratified, it became a stillborn effort. Period, end of story. Nothing came of it.
Yet here we are today, approaching 28 years later after the ‘big media splash’ about the memo set, and particular people are promulgating that set like it is the #1 be-all, end-all smoking gun evidence to indict the industry of treacherous deception. As in, what I was hinting about at the end of my Part 1 post. The promulgator has once again offered up his head on a silver platter to the defendant law firms representing the energy companies named in the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits across the U.S. – and potentially to the defendants in the (still M.I.A.) UK-filed Casquejo v Shell lawsuit. Continue reading
The People of the State of Michigan v BP P.L.C.
Readers who are aware of my collective dissections list know that I differentiate between ‘pure boilerplate copy’ filings by the San Francisco law firm Sher Edling and “Sher Edling Assistance,” where the latter lawsuits are a small handful seemingly appearing to be independently written in a manner suggesting Sher Edling had no hand in composing them, but then later became directly associated with that firm. My initial prediction back in May 2024 was that Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel would be committing political suicide if she elected to bring that firm in as ‘assisting counsel,’ and my update 4½ months later detailed how she had indeed made that massively unwise decision official. Time would tell if the filing turned out to be just another filing that copied ’n pasted accusation content from prior Sher Edling filings. A good indicator it would was AG Nessel’s equally unwise choice of the secondary ‘assisting law firm’ of DiCello Levitt which – as I showed in my dissection of the Pennsylvania Bucks County v BP lawsuit – had essentially plagiarized its material straight out of Sher Edling’s Chicago v BP filing. Notwithstanding the presence of DiCello Levitt having ‘top billing’ as the assisting firm for Chicago, my dissection of that one showed how it was a typical Sher Edling boilerplate copy ’n paste effort, the latest in a long string of them at the time.
But while this new 1/23/26 Michigan v BP filing gives Sher Edling ‘top billing’ for its assistant firms, it doesn’t follow Sher Edling’s typical copy ’n paste template. Continue reading
Casquejo et al. v Shell PLC Part 1 – Potential problems in the [M.I.A.] lawsuit document
My list of “ExxonKnew” lawsuits I’ve dissected mentions at the top how it excludes American filings which never bring up the accusation about ‘liars-for-hire scientists on the payroll of Big Oil.’ Same actually applies to lawsuits filed outside of the U.S., such as the Peruvian Farmer’s one against a German energy company and Greenpeace’s one against an Italian energy company. Regarding this one filed in the UK on Dec 9th, a.k.a. “Casquejo and others v Shell plc” I cannot yet find the actual document that was filed. When I do, I will either amend this post to say there’s no “crooked skeptic scientists” accusation within it … or else I’ll dissect it as Part 2. What I have spotted – almost immediately in news reports after being alerted to it – are tell-tale indicators which prompts me to wager it will mimic the U.S. ones. Observe the following: Continue reading
There’s That Name Again … And There’s That Accusation Again [11/20/25 Update]
11/20/25 update — see red double asterisk addition midway down, and at the bottom of this post.
Among all the tsunami of other controversial political news is the barely weeks-old scandal involving the BBC over revelations of their journalism malfeasance. Since I know a decent amount about another as-yet-unreported angle of BBC inaccuracies, I’ve emailed several UK reporters and others digging deeper into the overall situation to my coincidental 12 days-old filing of my complaint to the UK’s broadcast regulatory agency on this matter. What I briefly explained is that in 2020, the BBC relied on unverified ‘industry memos’ in a careless and illogical manner to claim the fossil fuel industry ran disinformation campaigns; their effort was hardly different than what happened a few years ago when the anti-Trump news media relied on the meritless “Steele Dossier” to accuse President Trump of engaging in despicable acts. I further pointed out how the accusation against the fossil fuel industry has every indication in the world of being traceable to a particular enviro-activist, Kert Davies, and how much of a one-trick pony the worthless memo phrase is for the anti-energy company activists.
What I should do is create another post in my “Background” series, to compile all of Kert Davies’ fatal credibility problems for ease of reference when corresponding with objective reporters. I plan to do that for my next post here. But in the meantime, let’s see where the man popped up just recently, and where that one-trick memo phrase popped up. Continue reading
Ofcom Complaint – [ the 2025 version ]
Relentless, I am. So here we go again with my continuing saga on imploring the mighty BBC news organization to do their core job. Call me “old school” on the matter, but news outlets are obligated – in my opinion – to report the news with no partisan slant, and to view information provided to them with a jaded eye, questioning any aspect of it where something just does not look right, and demanding not one but multiple rock-solid sources before publishing major accusations. In the case of the mid-summer 2020 report in which ex-Greenpeace operative Kert Davies brought the BBC ‘evidence’ which supposedly fit their program series titled “How They Made Us Doubt Everything” about the fossil fuel industry ‘ran disinformation campaigns to deceive the public’ … the BBC program producers should have first cast a basic ‘due diligence doubtful eye’ on whether Davies’ ‘evidence’ was verifiably true or not. They apparently did not, a basic violation of BBC’s own guidelines about gathering material. From that basic failure, they conveyed factual inaccuracies to their listening audience.
As I first detailed in my July blog post, when I spotted how the BBC strangely reworded their program title to eliminate the very phrase that was the core of my official complaint I filed, it was a ripe opportunity to refile my complaint. Now, here we go into the last available step in the complaint process. Continue reading
BBC [appears to] Bury a False 2020 Climate Issue Report Title – Part 3
BBC Complaints did actually reply to my protest, seen in the 8/15/25 Addendum section at the end of my July 25, 2025 Part 2 blog post, with an open invite to take my complaint to their next level-up “Stage 2” BBC Executive Complaints Unit (ECU). I’ve done so, as seen in what follows. At the rock-bottom level of explanation, the BBC system renamed their online podcast report for their August 2020 “How They Made Us Doubt Everything Episode 6 ‘Reposition Global Warming as theory, not fact‘ ” with the shorter-worded title, “The Tobacco Playbook: 6. From Fact to Theory.” It sure looked like they were burying the core fault about how the “reposition global warming” memos were not actually viable evidence to prove the fossil fuel industry ran disinformation campaigns. My complaint concerned that very ‘burial’ appearance. Their 8/12/25 reply was that the shorter title was for ‘saving text space,’ and my rebuttal to that said they needed to re-examine their 2021 final decision because the entire report – in original title form or retitled – was based totally on unsupportable evidence. Neither their ‘title piece’ smoking gun ‘evidence’ was ever implemented anywhere, nor was the secondary “victory will be achieved” memos ever implemented anywhere. Thus, their original ECU final decision must be revisited now, before their credibility implodes on this situation later. Continue reading
Ben Franta All But Declares ‘Victory will be achieved,’ concerning Multnomah v Exxon
As I implied in my just-prior blog post here, the worthless, never-implemented “victory will be achieved” memos aren’t just an accusation used under basically false pretenses around a decade ago, they are very much an ongoing current bit of ‘evidence’ used to support the stupid idea that ‘Exxon and other energy companies deceived the public on how they knew their products caused harmful global warming.’ Ben Franta, as I’ve suggested before, is quite a weak link in that whole false accusation chain, and just over 90 days ago – at this time of writing – he reinforced how it shouldn’t be the energy companies in the crosshairs for spreading disinformation, it should instead be guys exactly like him. He gets away with what he does because nobody of major prominence has questioned him about his accusations. Continue reading
Google’s “Artificial Intelligence Overview” – on ‘Industry Disinfo Evidence,’ trust its info as far as you can throw it
Much ado these days with people thinking “A.I.” is some kind of all-encompassing savior to make life easier. Just do a generic Google search of “A.I. can help with” and watch the system fill in the last words with a whole range of situations … with Google A.I.’s own automatically generated input right at the very top, where its handy helpful little links in its “Show More” section to expand what it offers. All as though “A.I.” is benign, soulless and without political bias.
Speaking of Google searches, I’ve been using its basic system almost exclusively for over a decade, since that system clearly head & shoulders above any other search engine – you just have to know how to circumvent its biased results by doing boolean searches to prompt results it might not want the public to know about. It’s how I discovered exactly what the Ozone Action environmental group was, and who its staff were. But in May 2024, Google began adding its ‘AI option’ to its search methods menu. I’ve avoided it like the plague, knowing and proving already just months earlier that at least some forms of A.I. had no intelligence whatsoever. For this blog post, however, I’ll actually look into Google’s “A.I. Overview” for the very first time. Watch this —
“Who discovered the fossil fuel industry memos with the phrase Reposition Global Warming as Theory (Not Fact)? What is their importance?” Continue reading