Oreskes et al. amicus brief to CA global warming lawsuits implodes


Laughable as the Green New Deal is, it’s built on the false premise that global warming science is settled. The less newsy courtroom angle is built on that cornerstone as well, but the lawsuits always contain — to the present day — a fatal flaw that can kill the whole global warming issue. To wipe out the credibility of skeptic climate scientists, enviro-activists must never draw attention to skeptics’ science expertise, they must portray them as corporate-bought shills spouting corporate-orchestrated lies.

I detail how the latest friend of the court filing for the CA lawsuits illustrate how the enviro-activists appear to be the ones who’ve been orchestrating a disinformation this whole time, via their enslavement to worthless ‘leaked memo evidence,’ which traces through a specific small clique of people straight back into Al Gore’s Senate office. The amicus brief is a case study for how these kinds of efforts operate.

Amicus brief, Brule, CCI, Farrell, Franta, Lewandowsky, Oreskes, Supran

Guest by Russell Cook

Here we go again. When I said in my December 14, 2018 blog post (and its Part 2), that enviro-activists only have a one-trick pony to use in their character assassination efforts against skeptic climate scientists, that’s no exaggeration. Their lack of diversity isn’t restricted to only minor league ‘reporters’ lately, it’s the only thing the most famous accusers have in their arsenal as evidence of a ‘skeptics / fossil fuel industry executives disinformation’ conspiracy. Look no farther for that than the 1/29/19 “Brief Of Amici Curiae, Robert Brule, Center For Climate Integrity, Justin Farrell, Benjamin Franta, Stephan Lewandowsky, Naomi Oreskes, and Geoffrey Supran” for the San Mateo /Imperial Beach / Marin / Santa Cruz v Chevron, California global warming lawsuits. Instead of presenting a more convincing argument for repeated use of the same old ‘leaked memo evidence,’ this little amici curiae group only amplifies how much of a problem it creates.

Not helping the situation at all is how this amici curiae filing is just one of eight other filings all submitted toward those California court cases all in the same day. I leave that strange situation for others to detail. Not helping this particular “Brule [sic] et al.” situation is how the preparers of the filling misspelled Robert Brulle’s name twice, and labeled one of the municipality plaintiffs as the “County of Imperial Beach” when it is the “City of..”

There’s a far bigger problem. This first involves quite a bit of setup which I illustrate mostly with links to screencapture images. Watch what happens when brief history angles of these individuals are examined, relative to how they support the notion that industry money buys lies from skeptic climate scientists:

  • Dr Justin Farrell / Dr Robert Brulle: Farrell is essentially another name I could add into a category I call “Skeptic-Trashing Environmental Sociologists” which already includes Brulle. Farrell’s 2016 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences article “Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change” follows the pattern of citing other skeptic-trashing sociologists for the notion that a collusion conspiracy exists between the fossil fuel industry and skeptic climate scientists, when such sociologists aren’t directly citing Naomi Oreskes, or skeptic-trashing advocacy group reports, who themselves (or their citations) ultimately cite Ross Gelbspan. Take a deeper look into Farrell’s citation of the Boykoff brothers 2004 paper and who do they cite for the accusation? Ross Gelbspan. They even thank him for his input. Take a deeper look into Farrell’s citation of Anthony Leiserowitz. When such things aren’t dubious citations, they appear to have dubious associations. Whose name was brought up in Oreskes’ 2012 La Jolla, California workshop on brainstorming-to-take-down-Big-Oil-using-Tobacco-Industry-litigation-tactics? Anthony Leiserowitz. Who is Anthony Leiserowitz Facebook Friends with? Ross Gelbspan. Essentially every one of these people is plagued by the problem of having three degrees of separation or less from Ross Gelbspan.

Quite possibly, this overall affliction is confirmation bias; these skeptic-trashing environmental sociologists, who are not climate science experts, proceed on the premise that man-caused global warming is settled science, so they seek confirmation for the notion that the public is misled by corporate-orchestrated misinformation. They simply never check to see if Gelbspan’s accusation is based on worthless evidence, or if he has other fatal credibility problems, or if the basic premise he offers about skeptic climate scientists getting too much ‘fair media balance’ is totally without merit.

In 1991, the Western Fuels Association spent over half a million dollars on a public relations campaign to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact)“15 p.139

15 Oreskes, N. (2010) My facts are better than your facts,: spreading good news about global warming, in: M. S. Morgan and P. Howlett (eds.) How do facts travel? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 135–166

But Oreskes is not the original source for those particular, as it turns out, non-WFA memos. Oreskes cites Gelbspan’s 2004 “Boiling Point” book for them and he cites his 1997 book, saying the memos are “in his possession,” while neverdisclosing where he “obtained” them. Years before Gelbspan ever mentioned them, the New York Times said the memos came from the Sierra Club, which never said how they got them.

It’s never a good sign when people take on the appearance of hiding a dubious source with this kind of cascading citation obfuscation.

Franta offered a related gem more recently, in a 2018 video symposium where  the end of his short presentation quoted the Center for International Environmental Law’s (CEIL)’s Carroll Muffett, who compared increasing oil company litigation pressure to the perseverance behind the old tobacco industry litigation. Where has that comparison appeared before? At a 2010 NYT article where a law professor (who had already written about the “reposition global warming memo as evidence in one then-current global warming case) was responding to the situation of the other then-current Matt Pawa-led Kivalina v Exxon case – which was also enslaved to the “reposition global warming” memos ‘evidence.’ (back then, his email address was “mp@pawalaw.com” — remember that address, it’ll come up again shortly).

Who was also a top administrator at CIEL many years ago wishing to sue oil companies? David Hunter, a board member of Ozone Action, the place that gave the “reposition global warming” / “older, less-educated males” / “younger, lower-income women” strategy / targeting memo phrases their first media traction with …. guess who? Incidentally, the lawyer leading the last surviving Hagens Berman global warming lawsuit, Matt Pawa, is also associated with CEIL.

But after introducing himself at the beginning of his presentation, Franta – mild profanity alert – channeled an anti-Exxon goal Muffett potentially endorsed in a leaked 2016 “let’s-nail-Exxon” email …………which also featured Kert Davies, Steve Kretzmann, Matt Pawa, and Ozone Action founder John Passacantando. Who are these five, along with another key name, Facebook Friends with? Ross Gelbspan. (Passacantando, though, before his entire Facebook account vanished)

But who was an earlier likely influence of Supran regarding the notion of the fossil fuel industry paying skeptics to push disinformation? Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project. The place that trains people to dramatically portray the old non-ICE memo phrase “reposition global warming” as a sinister industry directive. This influence might explain why FossilFreeMIT chose to state in their 2014 seven page treatise on the topic that:

In 1991, the National Coal Association (as noted above, at least 13 of the fossil fuel companies from which Fossil Free MIT is asking MIT to divest were members of this group), together with the Western Fuels Association and Edison Electric Institute established a group called the Information Council on [sic] the Environment (ICE). Its strategy, spelled out in a document produced by the Western Fuels Association and designed by a public relations firm, was to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact)”

Who was FossilFreeMIT’s sources for that assertion? UK Guardian journalist George Monbiot, who cites Naomi Oreskes …… and Naomi Oreskes …… who never actually made those memos available online, but instead showed a single page while quoting other phrases out of the memos, citing Ross Gelbspan’s 2004 “Boiling Point” pages 51-52 regurgitation of the memos, and claiming the memos were archived in a place where they actually were not. Worse, FossilFreeMIT attempted to bolster this evidence with quotes out of the actual ICE campaign newspaper PR ads, citing James Hoggan’s book. Hoggan cites Oreskes in his book for the “reposition global warming” memos, while Oreskes stated in her 2012 La Jolla workshop that she personallyretained copies of that ICE campaign material – possibly even the ads former Senate staffer Anthony Socci told her about. Socci, who once appeared side-by-side with Ross Gelbspan at a media panel discussion.

  • Naomi Oreskes: She basically parlayed her 2004 Science paper on ‘global warming consensus’ (which Al Gore used as a segue to lead into his moments-later recitation of the “reposition global warming” memo) into a second career of persecuting skeptic climate scientists. But as I’ve listed in my April 20, 2017 blog post and more recently in the latter section of my July 13, 2018 blog post, she has myriad huge credibility problems, and her problematic ties regarding the Western Fuels / ICE documents lead to both a person one step separated from Al Gore, and to Ross Gelbspan.

See the problem? No matter where you go in the ‘Big Coal & Oil conspiring with crooked skeptics’ accusation, there you are: separated from Ross Gelbspan by three degrees or less.

Now, after all that setup, the main attraction:

Regarding this particular Brule [sic]../ Oreskes et al. amici curiae filing, we have entertaining blunders offered in PDF file pages 39 through 42. Within that span, there is nothing more than a rehash of what I now humorously composite as “Victory will be achieved when we reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.”

First, even though they provide an online link to a form letter by Dr Patrick Michaels via footnote #52 with its “Information Council for the Environment” logo, they still incorrectly identify the PR campaign as the “Information Council on the Environment.” Twice.

More sloppy than that, however, is their assertion implied by footnote #52 ….

ICE’s primary strategy was to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact),”52

.… that Pat Michaels’ letter contained the ICE strategy goal. Clearly, it does not.

Some unfortunate legal aide at Keller Rohrback will likely be fired for these embarrassing content/name typos. But nobody will be able to blame an intern for Oreskes et al. citing the Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2015 copies non-WFA / ICE memos, which is the same action seen in the main California global warming lawsuits. As I detailed in my dissection of UCS’ ‘exposé’ of these memos, that’s another example of the ‘citation cascade problem — UCS cites the old “Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action” memo scans. In this amici curiae filing, they could have skipped the middleman and instead provided a link to Oreskes’ own personal 5-years-earlier copies, or directly to the “Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action” 2007 scans, or to whatever the New York Times or the Sierra Club might still have.

Meanwhile, that’s not the only major problem in this Oreskes et al. amici curiae filing. They feel compelled to bring up the equally worthless API “Victory will be achieved” memo (PDF file pgs 41-42), and they’re compelled to cite Kert Davies’ ClimateFiles website for the memo scans, not the archive version of the original National Environmental Trust copies, or still-current much-easier-to-read PCFFA website’s converted text, which is ironically problematic to the Sher Edling PCFFA v Chevronlawsuit.

They even make the mistake of pointing to Amy Westervelt – the minor league ‘reporter’ I referred to in my first paragraph here – as some kind of authority source, when one of Westervelt’s podcasts inexplicably undermines the UCS source of the “reposition global warming” memos, and when all of her podcasts never tell her audience what Kert Davies work history is. Westervelt also trumpets the API “Victory will be achieved” memo, but it is worthless as evidence of a sinister industry directive because it is 1)little more than a collection of truisms indicating the public successfully learning more about pre-existing science assessments from skeptics which Al Gore and his sycophants want the public to ignore; and 2) much like the unused, unsolicited proposal strategy / targeting memos part of the ICE PR campaign, the API memo was also unused and unsolicited or approved.

Examine all of these recurring accusations deeply enough from enviro-activists about misinformation, obfuscation, and suspect associations, and it looks less like sinister intent orchestrated by industry executives and increasingly more like what enviro-activists may have been doing the entire time right up to the present time.

Quoting the definition: “An amicus curiae is someone who is not a party to a case and may or may not have been solicited by a party and who assists a court by offering information, expertise, or insight …” The question to ask is whether these particular people, and others associated with them, might actually be directly and knowingly supplying the plaintiffs with worthless accusation material.

When the evidence for the accusation always filters back to Ross GelbspanOzone Action, and Al Gore’s 1991-’92 Senate office, the defendants in these lawsuits, along with congressional and/or other investigators, might want to ask why Gelbspan, the old crew (plural) from Ozone Action, and Gore are never named as the source in these latest lawsuits.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 8, 2019 6:30 pm

What we have is amicus briefs. link We have no idea if they have been effective until the court says something.

After years of watching SCO v. the whole world, I can tell you that briefs that look like garbage (even to lawyers) often succeed.

Reply to  commieBob
February 8, 2019 7:28 pm

commieBob said: “After years of watching SCO v. the whole world, I can tell you that briefs that look like garbage (even to lawyers) often succeed.” Good example.

Joel O'Bryan
February 8, 2019 6:33 pm

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a piece here for WUWT about an GMO food attitudes study. In my research on the subject I ran across an Op-Ed piece on Naomi Oreskes getting slammed by none other than a Huffington Post writer for her anti-GMO bias. The contributing writer was hammering her as, “She seems to pick and choose her consensus science.”

The HuffPo article:
“Denialism and the ‘Scientific Consensus’: Naomi Oreskes’ Attacks on Nuclear Energy and GMOs Expose Deep Divide Among Environmentalists”
where the contributor wrote of Oreskes:
““There is a tendency among public intellectuals who are entirely reasonable in some areas to descend into the promotion of pseudoscience in others.”

But to clear on Naomi Oreskes and her ilk,
the Common Denominator is Fear.
Climate Change alarmism is fear-based in its promotion.
Anti-GMO attitudes are fear-based in their promotion.
Anti-vaccination attitudes are fear-based in their promotion.

The only conclusion is:
Science and logic have nothing to do with Oreske’s predilections.
Fear-mongering is Naomi Oreske’s signature Modus Operandi and it is the path she has found to a fat Harvard paycheck.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 8, 2019 11:34 pm

Exactly. Fear sells news, fear garners research grants, fear wins votes, fear filled the pockets of Al Gore, David Suzuki and countless others. It has been about fear in campaigns against ozone depletion, fat, salt, cholesterol and so on. Fear is the original and final word in marketing. Be afraid, be very afraid, and buy.

Reply to  BCBill
February 9, 2019 7:32 am

“Help me! I’ve fallen and can’t get up!”

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  BCBill
February 9, 2019 1:24 pm

Buy salvation. Snake oil. Buy security, safety. Sell your soul and buy popularity.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 9, 2019 7:16 am

Don’t forget rage. Fear is the hook and rage is the directive.

The general plan is to make people fearful and then convert that energy into rage against someone or something. It is the old commie line about ‘needing viable enemies’ even if they have to create them.

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 9, 2019 9:35 am

This may be the entire first step of the global governance strategy. Create fear – fear of everything that makes current society work – so that the saboteurs can portray their “new” vision of a world without fear, and claim that only they can bring about this new Nirvana. Now they gain permission to ransack the wealth built by democratic capitalist society, enriching themselvesand ignoring the decent into poverty, conflict and ill health they have forcefully imposed on all the “little people”. Those “little people” in their world view, don’t deserve any consideration because of whatever contrived blame they have conceived of in their small self-indulgent minds that applies to everyone but those same saboteurs.

It doesn’t seem to make any difference that we can see this proces in action right now in Venezuela, or that we can read the history of this practice in USSR, China and Cuba and count the bodies and the destroyed societies. Somehow the tool of fear always works to befuddle unthinking citizens into believing the world is ending and only undemocratic, socialist world government will save us.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 9, 2019 11:44 am

Fear and guilt are the premises behind the catastrophic alarmism. They are ostensibly very powerful, but they are weak reeds, indeeds.

Jim Kress
February 8, 2019 7:26 pm

The government is PEOPLE, not Angels

The faith that people on the Left have in the sanctity, purity, and omniscience of the people employed by the government to deliver policy driving research never ceases to amuse me.

The concept of “the Government did it so it must be perfect” and “Industry did it so it must be evil” is naive at best and ignorant at worst.

“Progressives/ Liberals” worship government as god. Therefore, since their deity is government, concentration of power in government (as opposed to ‘man’ or ‘business’) must, by definition, be beneficent.

That explains their insistence that “Government Good, Business Bad” and their religious aversion to allowing businesses to engage in Capitalism or people to have the free will to select their own paths through life.

If one chooses to accuse people who are funded by the evil “Industry” as biased (due to greed or other imagined evil intent), then one must also consider the people funded by government to suffer from the same faults – and for similar reasons, greed, power, political control, etc.

In my over 30 years of work as a PhD Physical Chemist, Chemical Engineer, Manager, etc. – working with Scientists in Industry, Academia and Government , I have found that Scientists in Government/ Academia are no different than scientists in industry. Scientists in Government/Academia are no smarter, better educated, or more angelic than those in industry. They are all equally distributed along the IQ bell curve and all want to make money to support their families.

If payment is the determiner of outcome, then the same criteria and level of malfeasance must apply to ALL scientists, no matter what the source of funding.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Jim Kress
February 8, 2019 8:06 pm

Government is about political power.
The US constitution was specifically and intentionally designed to limit the powers of the 3 Federal branches by a carefully delineated separation of powers. The States and the People realizing then in 1788 that was still not enough, they insisted on a bill of Rights for the People and the States rights to be protected from the Federal government should 2 of those 3 branches decide to take more power from the People than the constitution would allow. The Framers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights very clearly understood the sicks minds of a totalitarian, of what we call today a “Socialist.”

The bottom line is Progressive/Liberals are about Big Government. To them, a big government knows best. For them, a Big Government is your cradle-to-grave teet to suckle-on to buy your vote, that is until Big Government decides it doesn’t like you.

Because the US Constitution and Bill of Rights exist as they do, the Lib/Progressives hate the the US Constitution and the BoR.
Hence we see intense efforts by the Left to ignore the 1st, 2nd, 9th and 10th Amendments. We see desires to eliminate States right by doing an end-around on the Presidential electoral college process.
And Climate Change is just a Trojan Horse containing the Socialism poison pills they want the US public to swallow.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 9, 2019 12:57 am

The Framers and Hamilton could draw up the Constitution only after defeating the globalist British Empire. The Confederates tried again later to impose a British constitution (Locke’s property).

It is lawful that London’s Christopher Steele et. al tried to subvert a US election and the cabal around “russiagate” owes its allegiance to London. The British empire wants the US back in the commonwealth, sans constitution. Looking at the war-party of Dems and GOP, they are close to getting their way, again.

Trump must declassify all documents relating to the Mueller circus.

Reply to  bonbon
February 9, 2019 1:28 am

The British Empire no longer exists nor do we want the colony back; any suggestion that this is so is beyond stupid.

Reply to  Mardler
February 9, 2019 3:03 am

Some days I wonder if the British Government exists, let alone an Empire.

Martin Cropp
Reply to  Mardler
February 9, 2019 9:13 am

The Commonwealth still exists, and is active. Mother England despite joining the supposed warm cuddly family of the EU where most things are decided for you, still heads the Commonwealth.

Leading up to Brexit there has been a significant increase from the Queen down to restore those Commonwealth relationships. Trade is the reason, Great Britain deserted the Commonwealth countries to join the EU.

Steve greene
Reply to  Mardler
February 12, 2019 3:09 pm

That’s because the UK has gone so far left that it is no longer relevant or capable a functioning as a powerful entity.

Reply to  bonbon
February 9, 2019 1:34 am

The British Empire no longer exists nor do we want the colony back.
Any suggestion that the UK government is plotting a coup against the USA to take it back is beyond stupid.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  bonbon
February 9, 2019 3:23 am

Sorry, we don’t want the USA back. We’d actually like to wall the whole lot off & then shovel all the crap that it’s produced in the way of Political Correctness, Climate Change, sexual deviation & the rest, over the wall.

Reply to  bonbon
February 9, 2019 7:49 am

Interesting that HRM Chatham House, Royal Institute for International Affairs, expert opinion on Jan 30 on how to bring the Dems to flout Trumps policy touts a photo-op of AOC.
The Green New Deal , from RIIA, would indeed destroy their former colony. No doubt they estimate Germany on-board with the phase out of nuclear and coal.

Subjects were not asked an opinion.

Reply to  bonbon
February 9, 2019 6:09 pm

It could be said that Washington DC’s Barack Obama tried to subvert a UK referendum…

Bonbon, you’re two centuries out of date. The empire builders of the 21st century (apart from China, which happens to serve as somewhat of a model) are the corporatists and international socialists of the UN and the trial run of the EU, and their fellow travellers everywhere. The old establishment of the UK have been sidelined – indeed, they’ve been replaced domestically by Fabians and like minds from within the public service professions, be that in politics, NGOs, media, education, law and order, the military leadership, you name it. Their aim couldn’t be further from a new British Empire: they seek the break-up of the nation that they loathe, to be ruled by like-minded foreigners. You may have noticed them from afar, fighting like hell to prevent the expression of British national pride in 2016 from destabilising the true globalist, corporatist agenda. Their biggest fear is accountability.

You want to know who’s trying to take away the USA’s independence? Americans. The DC swamp, allied to the UN via the UNFCCC beloved by us all and Agenda 21/30. Left-wing career politicians and public service professionals, including some of those named in this article, who hate your country the way their UK equivalents hate ours, and want to dismantle it one institution at a time. I’ve noticed them from afar, fighting like hell to prevent the expression of American national pride in 2016 from destabilising the true globalist, corporatist agenda. Their biggest fear, etc.

The empire being sought isn’t one under the control of any one nation. Oh no, that could be placed under democratic scrutiny. All the prospective Palpatines can’t be having that.

February 8, 2019 7:58 pm

I will do my part by asking the political representatives that show up at my door to have the wind turbines tore down. When they screech “global warming” , I will inform them that I will never vote for a member of the cult of CAGW. Keep up the good fight.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Martin557
February 9, 2019 4:50 am

“I will do my part by asking the political representatives that show up at my door to have the wind turbines tore down. When they screech “global warming” , I will inform them that I will never vote for a member of the cult of CAGW.”

Excellent idea! I will do the same.

In the spirit of Ronald Reagan: Tear Down That Windmill !!!

Rich Davis
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 9, 2019 6:43 am

Mr Gore…tear down that windmill!

(Since the iconic quote is “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall”)

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rich Davis
February 9, 2019 11:01 am

I agree, the addition of “Mr. Gore” makes it so much better. 🙂

Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 9, 2019 4:24 pm

Windmill vs. wind turbine.

The windmill of old is a very effective straightforward and efficient tool, often beautiful in its appearance and always useful in its applications. It has a natural aura.

The wind turbine not so much in any of these qualifications. So there is an immense difference between the two.

Reply to  Martin557
February 10, 2019 7:47 pm

UN Sustainable Development

“Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century”

Registered, 1 June 2005

Includes Partners list.

This is about advancing/promoting Renewable Energy Policy worldwide including wind and solar.

Facts don’t matter?

Reply to  Martin557
February 11, 2019 8:22 am

UN Sustainable Development

Partnerships For the SDGs

Left sidebar menu: Select

Keyword search and enter any topic
Sort By SDGs
Sort By Action Networks

SDG Goal 7: Energy and click on any item for information.

If anyone is interested?

Reply to  Barbara
February 12, 2019 12:02 am

It’s all pervasive, isn’t it.
Groups I would consider engaging in activism are termed as “multi-stakeholder partnerships”

Welcome to the UN.

February 8, 2019 8:17 pm

The chain of friends of the court briefs citing other persons who actually have the document maybe if they quoted the document accurately perhaps reminds me of stories about the story of the choking Doberman, which actually happened to a friend of a friend.

February 8, 2019 8:44 pm

A tough read stuffed with information.

Tough to read,because it comes across as an expert who fully understands their topic is writing as if everyone is fully conversant and fully knows all of the details on the same topic.

There are several key messages in the article.
* Same players, cite each other.
* All citations originate from extremely few sources that may not exist.
* One person is central to all citations and all references.
* Multiple organizations are connected through the same people who obfuscate their sources.
* That defendants in lawsuits by these dubious social whatever, should question claimed sources and demand independent physical evidence.

The article also describes collusive racketeering by activists.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  ATheoK
February 8, 2019 9:35 pm

Ms. Oreskes needs a “Sir Weaver” award along with the rest of the climate swindlers who filed AC briefs.

“His whole retinue stared and stared. One saw no more than another, but they all joined the Emperor in exclaiming, “Oh! It’s very pretty,” and they advised him to wear clothes made of this wonderful cloth especially for the great procession he was soon to lead. “Magnificent! Excellent! Unsurpassed!” were bandied from mouth to mouth, and everyone did his best to seem well pleased. The Emperor gave each of the swindlers a cross to wear in his buttonhole, and the title of “Sir Weaver.”

From “The Emperor’s New Clothes” by HC Andersen.

Reply to  ATheoK
February 8, 2019 9:57 pm

Oh, I might ask for a touch of forgiveness on the ‘writing for a particular audience’ angle. The backstory here is that this is another post in a series in the “Global Warming Lawsuits” category at my GelbspanFiles.com blog, where it’s assumed that the small but loyal audience who follows my work are fairly conversant about what I’ve detailed since 2013. On various occasions, as in this situation, I alert various influential friends about my latest pieces, and in some past instances, Anthony Watts has reproduced my blog posts at WUWT. Once again, I owe him a debt of gratitude for allowing me to tell the tale of the smear of skeptic climate scientists to a much wider audience. The more who know about the specifics of character assassination efforts against people like Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Willie Soon, and others, the sooner this injustice can be rectified.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  ATheoK
February 9, 2019 6:18 am

ATheoK – February 8, 2019 at 8:44 pm

A tough read stuffed with information.

After reading part of the above article I determine that if there was ever a need for a PERT chart to be included with an article, ……. this was it.

And for sure, ……what is desperately needed for one to keep track of and/or to quickly reference “who or what” is directly or indirectly connected to ”who or what”.

A PERT chart like so, for those not familiar, to wit:


Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
February 10, 2019 7:24 am

A great deal of information has been compiled by Russell Cook.

I agree that a PERT chart would be very helpful. Even a master chart with sub-charts breaking down individual associations/circular citations.

The bigger the ‘mess’ the more it needs to be clearly revealed.

High Treason
February 8, 2019 9:41 pm

Judicial bias is highly likely to impact here. Although we all see that the entire climate hysteria is a hoax at best, the gigantic can of worms that would be opened if the full extent of the treachery were to be revealed would cause rather large ripples across the planet. The treachery pervades government, UN, corporations, academia, government organisations, media – in short, so many heads would roll that it would take a fleet of trucks just to take away the severed heads of the corrupt operators that have been fleecing us and potentially destroying our entire energy based civilization.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  High Treason
February 8, 2019 10:00 pm

“Judicial bias is highly likely to impact here.”

Which is exactly why the Democrats did everything they could to try and stop Brett Kavanaugh from becoming the 5th conservative voting (read: constitution abiding) justice on the Supreme Court. last Fall.
Everything the Left had hoped to achieve from its “social justice” BS, to climate change totalitarianism, to bypassing the Bill of Rights, depended on having an activist and dishonest liberal Supreme Court that would go along with a “Living Constitution” interpretation.

Expect the next Associate Justice that Trump nominates to SCOTUS to make Kavanaugh’s confirmation look easy in comparison, as Democrat’s will pull every last plug to try and stop that nominee.

P.S. Associate Justice RBG’s time is about up. Take that to the bank. 2 metastatic lung cancer tumors with a subsequent lobectomy as your 3rd bout with cancer at 85 yrs old means your days left are quite limited; there is no chemo, no radiation, no next operation, only quiet hospice. The press cannot admit that to their readers. But her end is coming faster than most people realize.

Reply to  High Treason
February 10, 2019 7:58 am

Yes, exposing the “full extent of the treachery’ needs to happen.Tthe key players within governments need to be named. The UN’s role needs to be fully exposed. The financial evidence that exposes the deals made and the corporations that benefitted from this deception must be identified. And finally academic institutions and the curriculum used to frighten and brainwash need to be called out. All government related organizations and non governmental organizations involved with the alarmist deception and above all, the complicit media must be exposed fully.
Let this “gigantic can of worms be opened”.
This message needs to be repeated again and again until action is taken to begin this process effectively.

February 9, 2019 12:02 am

I am sick of the word “Progressive”, when by its use it means to go backwards, certainly not forward.

How did this happen ?


Mike Ozanne
Reply to  Michael
February 9, 2019 1:15 am

The aposite reference work is ISBN-10: 0141036141

al neipris
Reply to  Michael
February 9, 2019 1:42 am

“I am sick of the word “Progressive”, when by its use it means to go backwards, certainly not forward.”

Well, I certainly agree. But perhaps it’s our fault for going along with this Orwellian terminology. “Smug idiots” would be much more like it.

Thomas L.
Reply to  al neipris
February 9, 2019 8:46 am

I always change any reference to “Progressive” to “Congresssive”. I find it makes the meaning clear.

Cliff E. Hilton
Reply to  Michael
February 9, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Michael

” I am sick of the word “Progressive”, when by its use it means to go backwards, certainly not forward. ”

Regressive rhymes!

al neipris
February 9, 2019 1:37 am

I greatly appreciate folks who have the ability and drive to shine a light on the stupid mendacity of the climatariat. Where would we be without you? But for heaven’s sake try and write better. I’m a freelance writer and a reasonably intelligent guy. For what it’s worth I scored in the top percentiles on my verbal SAT’s, both aptitude and achievement, way back in the Iron Age. In other words, I’m a competent reader of English. I suggest at least writing a couple of drafts before publishing. If you’re already doing that perhaps you can find a skeptic editor to lend his/her expertise to the project.


Reply to  al neipris
February 9, 2019 1:59 am

I just couldn’t make anything of the article. Too many actors in the play is another problem. It desperately needs an abstract where the whole thing is summarized.

I came out with the idea that somebody wrote a brief for a court case that was not very well supported. But that is all opinion, and only the judge’s decision matters in court cases.

Reply to  Javier
February 9, 2019 2:07 am

What I got out of it was that all of their claims boiled down to one set of memos which have never been seen and the fact that no one has identified their source. It is all just a house of cards. Kind of like their claims of understanding the global climate.

Reply to  Javier
February 9, 2019 4:07 am

Perhaps it could be reduced to the sort of diagram you see in the cop shows on TV , where on a white board, pictures of the suspects are pinned, with arrows indicating the relative relevance to the crime in question.

Charles Taylor
Reply to  Javier
February 9, 2019 6:44 am

My sentiment as well.

Reply to  al neipris
February 9, 2019 4:38 am

have to disagree Im afraid,
I found it easy enough to read and understand the layers of collusion and evasion as well as the not unusual pack /cabal /cluster play.
It was Booker his EUreport? or similar that did a truly excellent and similar expose years ago on Pachauri that really woke me up to just how dirty and devious the entire AGW scammers are.
this article was also excellent for doing the same
well done and Im sharing it widely
the biggest hurdle is geting people to read anything more than a few paragraphs nowdays limited attentin spans and soundbites are all they handle before their tiny minds hurt.
exactly what the agw meme play to.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
February 9, 2019 9:34 am

Thank you for your support! I do like it when people put out the effort to absorb it, and it is a bit of a frustration for me when others give up too easily to understand what I detail. It’s sorta like absorbing Steve McIntyre’s or Chris Horner’s / David Schnare’s material – a person can subsequently speak with much more authority on ClimateGate / IPCC / FOIA document madness, but you first sacrifice getting a migraine headache from reading it all, which includes reading related linked-to material.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
February 9, 2019 5:01 pm

Agree with ozspeaksup

The format of your post is perfect as a telling confrontation with the scrutiny, patience, analysis and consistency needed for fighting the real battle – in courts.

February 9, 2019 1:44 am

Thank you so much for this post. I get hit with the claim of fossil fuel industrial funding on a regular basis. I ask for their evidence and have yet to see anyone making such a claim be able to back it up in any shape form or fashion. Presenting those making such claims with this kind of documentation will feel like a slap up the side of the head.

Johann Wundersamer
February 9, 2019 4:03 am

“In 1991, the Western Fuels Association spent over half a million dollars on a public relations campaign to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact)“15 p.139”. Fact.

“Russian collusion decided United States presidential election”. Fact.

To be, or not to be, that is the question –> fact or fiction, THAT is the question!

Rich Davis
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
February 9, 2019 7:34 am

Wie bitte, Johann? To quote your memorable phrase, was für ein Haufen gequirlter Scheiße! (What a bunch of whipped…stuff)

How can “collusion” determine the outcome of an election? I do not recall Russian troops forcing people to vote, or tearing up “incorrectly” marked ballots. If you are claiming that Russia hacked the DNC and revealed truths that voters didn’t like, that would be interference, not collusion, but why do you not care that the Democrats were doing things that voters wouldn’t like?

Anyway, it’s nonsense to think that hacking the DNC made any significant difference. What mattered was the drip-drip-drip of revelations—official, legal revelations—that Hillary Clinton exposed classified information by storing it insecurely in her illegal, unauthorized private email server. (Which existed to shield her illegal graft activities in the Clinton Crime Family, but that part has been successfully hidden so far)

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Rich Davis
February 9, 2019 10:07 am

Rich, the dragging out of this bogus Mueller collusion investigation and parlaying it with a House version may well be to hold off on the investigations the Trump administration surely has planned re the Clintons, Podestas, and other progressive dodgers and felons and subversives and their enablers- Comey et al.

It’s time to take a leaf out of the progressives book. Being the “entitled”, progressives have proven to be the biggest perpetrators of sexual harrassment and circumventors of laws and rules (a byproduct of p,)

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 9, 2019 10:11 am

Oops, …continuing, … a byproduct of a world view in which reason and logic are what you want them to be.

February 9, 2019 6:03 am

Mr. Cook: I agree wholeheartedly with a number of other commenters. Your post is packed with potentially interesting information but it is so badly written as to be counter-productive. Who, what, when and how are good places to start.

P.S. I share your view that public opinion and the legal process are being manipulated by a small cadre of fanatics.

Reply to  bernie1815
February 9, 2019 9:42 am

The good place to start is at my GelbspanFiles.com blog — the who, what, when,& how is already there in considerable detail, and my shorter older summaries of the situation are seen in my home page tab of my Archived articles which appeared elsewhere. Take some time to read through it, and the enormity of the situation will become clear.

As I noted in my 1st comment here yesterday, this guest post is a actually the top-most one at my GelbspanFiles blog http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=8291 , as the latest in a series (the links automatially open new tabs there; the links in this guest post seem to have a glitch, requiring all to be right-clicked to open them ). I alerted Anthony and other influential people I know to it, and he chose to repost it. I greatly thank him for that favor.

If I ask one favor, it is for readers to work with me on this, not against me. What I do at my blog is, if I may boldly make the comparison, is compile evidence of the smear of skeptic climate scientists much like Steve McIntyre compiles evidence of the hockey stick/ IPCC / ClimateGate situations. It’s not superficial material written for general audiences; I’d like much of the recent material to end up as evidence in court action or congressional investigation (possibly as opposing ‘friend of the court’ filings), and if any prominent analysts decide to write describe the situation while footnoting my material, then they will be assured that any assertions they make is backed by bulletproof references.

Reply to  Russell Cook
February 10, 2019 2:58 am

Mr Cook, I have to agree with Bernie1815. If you are writing an article for WUWT you can’t assume that people have read / will read your blog. Present the evidence as you would to someone who knows nothing about the subject.

For an example of communication best practice, see just about anything by Willis Eschenbach.

Reply to  Phil
February 10, 2019 11:25 am

I agree. But as noted in the comment just prior to yours and in another comment by me here yesterday, this was NOT a piece written for WUWT as a stand-alone piece. I have written such pieces directly before, however, with that intention, and they reflected the need to first offer background information. This piece was one more in a series of blog posts at my GelbspanFiles blog aimed at the small but loyal audience already reading my posts who have know the background material. I alerted Anthony and others that there may be material within my GelbspanFiles post that they might find useful, and Anthony chose to reproduce the entire content. Your advice, while well-intended, is based on a completely false premise. I imagine Anthony intended it to prompt others to take a deeper look into a facet of the AGW issue they otherwise might be aware of, but are now curious to learn more about. If you’ve chosen to take a look at my blog and the stand-alone articles in my Archive section dating back to 2010, that’s great, and I’ve succeeded even despite my piece here being initially a tough read. If you’d rather be fed nothing but short summaries of various facets of the issue which only gives you surface-level understanding of it all, I would respectfully suggest that WUWT, with many of its intensely detailed bits from Steve McIntyre, Chris Horner, and others, is simply not suitable for you.

Curious George
February 9, 2019 7:59 am

Social Justice Warriors are not a conspiracy. Yellow Vests are a conspiracy.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Curious George
February 9, 2019 10:51 am

Correct Curious! SJW is only one of the useful idiot branches of the real putsch. Most followers haven’t a clue what’s really going on. And you, Curious…?

February 9, 2019 8:22 am

In my look at the Amicus Brief, I have taken a different approach.Would oil industry executives have taken in board the CAGW theory as good science – or junk alarmism?The first section evidence to support the claim 
Defendants had early knowledge that fossil fuel products were causing an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and that this increase couldresult in “catastrophic” consequences.
The earliest evidence of oil industry executives being told of CAGW in the Amicus Brief is from 1959 – on page 4 of the brief.

In 1959, physicist Edward Teller delivered the first warning of the dangers of global warming to the petroleum industry, at a symposium held at Columbia University to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the industry. Teller described the need to find energy sources other than fossil fuels to mitigate these dangers, stating, “a temperature rise corresponding to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York. All the coastal cities would be covered, and since a considerable percentage of the human race lives in coastal regions, I think that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to believe.”

Edward Teller was a world renowned scientist at the time, know as the “father of the H-bomb”. But a 10% rise in a trace gas would melt Antarctica! Surely if they checked with geologists of the time, they would have been told that claim was hugely exaggerated.
The Mauna Loa CO2 levels are almost 30% higher than in 1959. The tide gauges in the New York area do not show any sign of acceleration since 1959, and I have seen nothing about unusual flooding. 
I believe that if people are first presented with claims that are found to be  massively exaggerated, they might be less credulous when later presented with far more moderate claims that are much better supported. 

I look at the tide data at https://manicbeancounter.com/2019/02/03/climate-alarmism-from-edward-teller-in-1959/

Rich Davis
Reply to  Kevin Marshall (Manicbeancounter)
February 10, 2019 8:18 am

So, assuming the claim is accurate (I haven’t done any fact-checking), is there any possibility that Teller had interests in fission power or fusion research? Or in a fit of sudden conscience at being responsible for creating the most horrific weapons in history, he may have wanted his work to have some relevance to benefiting mankind?

Martin Cropp
February 9, 2019 8:39 am

For some reason I can edit the main post, and the links don’t work as a consequence.

Reply to  Martin Cropp
February 9, 2019 9:37 am

There seems to be a glitch in the way this guest post was copied from my main blog post. All my links are fully functional there: http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=8291 Plus the formatting of the indented paragraphs worked at my blog post, but reverts to standard paragraphs here.

February 9, 2019 8:47 am

Ugh. Is anyone else reminded of the Wicked Witch of the West?

Rich Davis
February 9, 2019 8:48 am

Maybe she’s not a cute dancer like AOC, but tagging Oreskes’ picture with “Climate Ugliness” is not very chivalrous of you!

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rich Davis
February 9, 2019 8:50 am

Oops I guess it was Anthony who posted this

Reply to  Rich Davis
February 9, 2019 9:51 am

Wasn’t me, but Anthony’s “Climate Ugliness” has long applied to the ugly side of character assassination and other mean-spirited non-science tactics many AGWers have employed over the years. Trust me on this, I don’t judge the folks on that side by the way they look or sound, I judge on how consistent their narratives are. What I’ve found, using perhaps overkill to back up, is that they can’t keep their stories straight even if their reputation depended on it. E.g. http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=6007

Rich Davis
Reply to  Russell Cook
February 9, 2019 4:24 pm

I’m sure you do and I apologize for being flippant. My comment was faux serious. Not really trying to ridicule someone for appearance, it’s more an observation that very often people who are ugly on the inside are also not super attractive on the outside.

Reply to  Rich Davis
February 10, 2019 7:41 am


Are you suggesting Oreskes is ugly? Adjective or adverb or other?

Rich Davis
Reply to  eyesonu
February 10, 2019 8:29 am

I think it’s clear what I said. Oreskes has ugly opinions on the inside where it matters, and she’s not super attractive on the superficial outside to hide those flaws.

She has little control over her outward appearance which is why we should not criticize that, but she can control what she thinks, says, and does. She can eliminate that ugliness.

February 9, 2019 8:50 am

Another claim in the Amicus Brief, this time from page 5

Then in 1965, API President Frank Ikard delivered a presentation at the organization’s annual meeting. Ikard informed API’s membership that President Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee had predicted that fossil fuels would cause significant global warming by the end of the century. He issued the following warning about the consequences of CO2 pollution to industry leaders:
This report unquestionably will fan emotions, raise fears, and bring demands for action. The substance of the report is that there is still time to save the world’s peoples from the catastrophic consequence of pollution, but time is running out.

The actual report – on all types of pollution – made the following very short statement

Carbon dioxide is being added to the earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil and natural gas at the rate of 6 billion tons a year. By the year 2000 there will be about 25% more CO2 in our atmosphere than at present. This will modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in the climate, not controllable though local or even national efforts, could occur. Possibilities of bringing about countervailing changes by deliberately modifying other processes that affect climate may then be very important.

Rather than time running out to stop fossil fuel emissions causing warming, that paragraph is saying something quite different. Only the Amicus Brief does not reference the report, only a selected quote from an opinion given about the report.
I leave it to the readers to evaluate for themselves.
My opinion is at
The full report is at
The paragraph above is on page 9. It is worth reading Appendix Y4 from Page 111 for some early alarmism, For instance, the melting of the Anatarctic ice cap would raise sea levels 400 feet (or 122 meters.)

If 1,000 years were required to melt the ice cap the sea level would rise 4 feet per decade, 40 feet per century. 

February 9, 2019 10:45 am

Oh, so I’m supposed to take seriously the lawsuit against oil companies for drilling fossil fuel, producing fossil-fuel products or services, promoting and providing their use to people who DEMAND them ?

I thought it was still a joke.

DISCLAIMER: Not responsible for carbon footprint left by the chain of causation linked to fossil-fuel-enabled response to my comment. If you are a climate warrior reading this, then shame on you for using a computer, being warm, well-fed, well-clothed, free to transport yourself about the land, and free to complain about all other people’s ability to to the same, because of fossil fuels from the companies you are suing. If you are a climate warrior wishing to respond, then do NOT — step away from the computer! — that electricity conveying your keystrokes to another living being is produced using fossil fuel, the parts of the computer were made using fossil fuel, the desk it is sitting on …, the structure in which you and it are housed …, ……………………… . If you are not a climate warrior, then add your own ridicule to the mix.

February 9, 2019 2:32 pm

Re. Beng 13 and his comment about “The wicket witch of the West” More to the point is “The man (Wizard) behind the Green Curtain”. We all need Judy’s little dog to pull aside the curtain. And who would we find, why Maurace Strong of course.


M__ S__
February 9, 2019 4:13 pm

Yeah, the character assassination used so frequently used to be called ad hominem—which everyone knew was a substitute for an argument and those using it frequently were admitting their opponents were right.

Have we forgotten this?

Reply to  M__ S__
February 10, 2019 7:59 am

I’m sitting at a table, drinking a cup of juice. Somebody walks by and dumps a shaker of salt into it. I curse him and call him names that deny him any dignity of being considered even remotely intelligent. Is this “character assassination”? Or is this an understandable response to very stupid behavior?

Sometimes the scale of stupidity displaces the consideration of rational debate. This seems to be one such occasion, where this is true.

Walter Sobchak
February 9, 2019 6:27 pm

This garbage is not admissible evidence:

Federal Rules of Evidence › Article X. Contents Of Writings, Recordings, And Photographs › Rule 1002. Requirement of the Original

An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
February 10, 2019 11:27 am

You are referring to Oreskes et al. ‘evidence’ which is a citation cascade leading back to the original content which she and her pals inexplicably can’t bring themselves to point directly to?

February 10, 2019 8:55 am

It is hard to imagine this battle ever coming to an end. The eco-terrorists will never stop until they have brought every thing to a halt. Even then they will be incapable of fathoming what they have done. The eco movement without a doubt is a religion.

M Montgomery
Reply to  wadelightly
February 11, 2019 5:17 pm

It’s important to thoroughly know the backstory of Alarmists non-science fear tactics. But in doing so we digress nonetheless. Scientists need to get off these geeky websites and into the muddy trenches. “Important” is different than “urgent”. Now comes the Green New Deal, which represents incremental socialism. AOC’s version may not pass, but now that we’re over the shock of the brazen worst of it, it will be re-calibrated and something incremental will pass.

This “important” stuff can come later and as needed, but it is a distraction. It’s part of the hundreds of argumentative fallacies in their quiver.

“Keep it simple stupid.” Stick to the science. All that is necessary is to debunk CO2-IPCC theory. Focus. Scientists gather together, write letters signed by all, speak in groups before Congress. Show the world just how ridiculous this period of time will be remembered in our Star Trek future.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights