My prior blog post pointed out the irreconcilable difference between reports that Greenpeace administrator Kert Davies or Greenpeace worker Jesse Coleman was the person who initiated Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests which supposedly exposed the corporate corruption of skeptic climate scientist Dr Willie Soon. Coleman or Davies – can’t be both. While I was compiling my prior blog post, I spotted another sizable problem, but I noted that it would have to be a Part 2 separate blog post. So, here it is; the mountainous pile of items showing just how faulty the “crooked skeptic scientists” accusation just keeps getting bigger and more unsustainable to defend. Continue reading
Tag Archives: Kert Davies
The ‘Dr Willie Soon got $1.2 million from Exxon’ Accusation … just got an increment more dicey
If you are going to mold a corruption allegation against a particular critic of ‘man-caused global warming’ into one of the central arguments for suing fossil fuel companies out of existence – ‘FOIA-released documents led to the revelation of this industry-paid corruption’ – wouldn’t it be advisable for you to be absolutely certain that the narratives about this ‘FOIA revelation’ line up right, and that there isn’t some other related angle that could land one of your associates in Federal prison over what appears to be his own potentially corrupt behavior? Whereupon – perhaps in exchange to reduce his prison sentence – he might offer prosecutors details on how the corruption allegation (which you have every appearance of concocting out of thin air) may end up imperiling the entire ‘climate crisis’ issue while also landing you in jail or facing monumental civil action penalties? Continue reading
Social Media sez the Manosphere wants to “Reposition Global Warming as Theory”
When I send news tips to influential investigative groups / reporters / legal profession analysts on how the “ExxonKnew” lawsuit filings have an enslaved reliance on the meritless “reposition global warming” memos to support their claims that the industry ran ‘disinfo campaigns,’ the one thing that worries me is how those people might respond with, “oh, come on – the enviros surely would not be so dumb as to put all their faith for the last two decades into just one single major accusation like that. And surely there’s more than one corroborating source for that memo set beyond what you say is just one source. You must be exaggerating on all of this.”
No, I’m not. Watch this, it’s a short Instagram video, only a bit over two minutes long: Continue reading
Amicus Brief of Naomi Oreskes … er, “Expert Report” Redux 5: the Conservation Law Foundation v Shell version
The famous Marc Morano asked me in person while I was at the April 8-9 Heartland Institute climate conference if I knew whether if Naomi Oreskes was still active. Wish I had the answer right then – yes, she is. I know that now because the Court Listener website, which I inadvertently ran across while trying to learn more about the Ramirez v Exxon lawsuit, turns out to be even more useful than I first thought. Continue reading
Pedro Ramirez Jr v Exxon Mobil Corp
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
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