BOMBSHELL: NAOMI ORESKES ON RETAINER WITH PLAINTIFFS’ LAW FIRM

Reposted from ENERGYINDEPTH

MAY 13, 2021 | WILLIAM ALLISON

A major bombshell dropped today about the nationally coordinated climate litigation campaign after it was revealed that Naomi Oreskes – the Harvard researcher and well-known “Exxon Knew” activist – is on retainer with Sher Edling, the plaintiffs’ law firm serving as the outside counsel for more than a dozen states and municipalities that have filed climate lawsuits around the country.

The New York Times previously reported that Oreskes “conceived” the infamous 2012 La Jolla conference where the playbook for the entire campaign was developed in her role as co-founder of the Rockefeller-funded Climate Accountability Institute.

Now Oreskes has gone from planning the litigation campaign to becoming a full-on participant in these lawsuits, as CNN reports:

“The company said Naomi Oreskes, one of the main authors of the study, is on retainer with a law firm that is leading lawsuits against Exxon and others in the industry. Exxon called this a ‘blatant conflict of interest.’ Oreskes was not immediately available for comment.” (emphasis added)

This revelation came out today in coverage that was focused on a new study from Oreskes and fellow Harvard researcher and activist Geoffrey Supran that aimed to undermine the energy industry through a blatantly biased and subjective examination of ExxonMobil’s public communications under the guise of “peer-reviewed” research.

Yet Oreskes, nor her colleague Supran, did not disclose this business relationship with Sher Edling in numerous interviews published on the study, a clear attempt to hide the conflict of interest as they published yet another piece of research with the goal of supporting climate lawsuits.

Furthermore, in the same deposition that Oreskes acknowledged her work with Sher Edling, she also disclosed she previously had a retainer agreement with Matt Pawa, another plaintiffs’ attorney representing climate lawsuits and key participant in the La Jolla conference. Oreskes said:

“I agreed that I would be willing to be a consultant, and I believe that we – we had an exchange. I believe I signed a retainer agreement. I believe we discussed what my hourly rate would be.”

We’ve seen this playbook before of academics working with plaintiffs’ attorneys in support of climate litigation. Ann Carlson, formerly of UCLA Law School’s Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, worked as a consultant for Sher Edling, and Michael Burger, the Executive Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, serves as Of Counsel for the law firm.

New Rockefeller-Funded Study Ignores Demand For Oil And Gas

The revelation of Oreskes’s business relationship with Sher Edling amid the coverage of her latest paper demonstrates exactly why her and Supran’s work can’t be perceived as objective.

The paper claims to examine ExxonMobil’s “rhetoric and framing to shape public discourse on climate change,” but is filled with the same unobjective research methods and analysis they have deployed before. Relying on similarly faulty analysis and methodology in this most recent study undermines any confidence that the authors are seeking objective truths or a greater understanding of our energy and environmental challenges.

For example, the study alleges that the company’s public mentions of continued demand for oil and natural gas products are essentially an effort to shift responsibility for climate change onto consumers.

“One of our key findings is that ExxonMobil’s public communications have shifted responsibility for climate change away from itself and onto consumers by publicly fixating on consumer energy ‘demand’ rather than the fossil fuels that the company supplies,” Supran told Axios.

Supran’s allegation, however, completely ignores the very real, consistent demand for fossil fuels, which is not the result of clever marketing but of basic economic principles. As Axios notes in its article:

“Most independent analyses of long-term energy use and demand show oil and natural gas remaining large sources of energy for decades is a consensus position, even in a world that begins implementing much more aggressive climate policies that significantly cut demand.”

Case-in-point: this study was published amid wall-to-wall coverage of consumers lining up for miles at gas stations amid gasoline shortages across the southeastern United States. Supran’s desire to lay the blame of climate change solely at the feet of companies ignores that we all rely upon and burn fossil fuels, thereby contributing to climate change.

Not surprisingly, this latest paper was financially supported by the Rockefeller Family Fund – part of the network of Rockefeller groups that have manufactured the entire climate litigation campaign. True to form, the paper suggests that its methods and findings could be used to support the Rockefeller-promoted climate cases. The paper also received glowing coverage from InsideClimateNews – the Rockefeller-funded news website.

The paper was also published in the journal One Earth, whose advisory board includes Michael Mann, who also sits on the board of the Climate Accountability Institute – the group that organized the infamous La Jolla conference in 2012 where the playbook for climate lawsuits was developed, and which, of course, receives money from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

A Track Record of Activism

As Energy In Depth as shown before, the political and legal attacks on the energy industry are a part of an orchestrated campaign run by wealthy foundations, plaintiffs’ attorneys, and environmental activist groups.

At the heart of this campaign is Oreskes and Supran, who have established a clear pattern of conducting research that that omits keys facts, takes information of context, and uses data from biased sources. This shouldn’t be a surprise considering that neither Oreskes nor Supran are objective researchers, but rather self-proclaimed “activist” participants in the climate litigation campaign.

Oreskes no problems making her feelings known publicly:

Did Exxon deliberately mislead the public on climate change? Hello. Of course they did! https://t.co/S7j7UuXsg8 via @slate

— NaomiOreskes (@NaomiOreskes) October 21, 2015

Meanwhile, Supran, who describes himself in his Twitter bio as a “scientist-activist,” has tweeted that he hopes someone “engineers Exxon out of business.”

Oreskes’ and Supran’s most prominent research was their 2017 paper examining the internal documents and public communications of Exxon and Mobil from the 1970s up to 2014. This deeply flawed paper conflated three different companies as if they were always one organization, missed thousands of relevant documents, and they even downplayed an expert they previously cited. That paper, just like today’s study, was also funded by the Rockefeller Family Fund.

Moreover, an expert in the field identified numerous flaws in their analysis and noted that their bias against the company prevented them from producing an objective examination:

“Content analysis coding ought to be conducted with coders who are at arm’s-length with regard to the research, in order to maximize objectivity. Optimally, coders should be blind to the research questions or goals. In the S&O study, the coders were not blind. In fact, they were as non-blind as could be imagined. They were the investigators themselves, as well as an affiliated graduate student. In this particular case, the problematic nature of informed coders is magnified by the coders’ long-time and intensive involvement in the popular communication of climate change. Further, two of the coders have publicly demonstrated particular biases that existed before the execution of the S&O study (Oreskes, 2004; Oreskes, 2015a, 2015b; Oreskes & Conway, 2010; Supran, 2016). (emphasis added)

Oreskes has also co-authored at least two climate attribution studies with Richard Heede – the director of the Climate Accountability Institute. This research claims to link a specific amount of carbon emissions with specific energy companies, but “attribution was actually originally suggested with the courts in mind,” as Heede and other litigation proponents have publicly acknowledged.

Oreskes and Supran aren’t just boosting climate litigation with studies, conferences, and tweets. They’re also directly supported these climate lawsuits in the past by signing amicus briefs that have been filed to advocate on behalf of the municipalities suing energy companies for climate change.

It’s A Coordinated Effort

As soon as the paper was published, multiple news articles immediately published featuring the story, including individual interviews, further highlighting the coordinated effort by the entire climate litigation campaign.

The rollout of today’s paper from Oreskes and Supran once again shows that their work is more about a carefully designed PR and media strategy aimed at ExxonMobil than it is about addressing climate change. They’re only interested in pointing fingers.

4.6 34 votes
Article Rating
96 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Zig Zag Wanderer
May 13, 2021 10:10 pm

Lying liars lie

Dave Fair
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
May 13, 2021 10:27 pm

But … but … but … I thought these were noble and disinterested scientists!

Mark E Shulgasser
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 13, 2021 10:53 pm

Oreskes is not a scientist at all. She is an historian of science, a discipline that is subsumed by the department of history in most universities. She is not required and cannot be expected to wear the mantle of objectivity which is implicit in the term ‘scientist’. There are, I think, no requirements to reveal conflict of interest in the journals in which she publishes, which are humanities, not science, journals.

Last edited 1 month ago by Mark E Shulgasser
Bryan A
Reply to  Mark E Shulgasser
May 13, 2021 11:18 pm

I wonder if RICO Laws would apply to the point that ALL involved parties could have assets frozen?

Anon
Reply to  Bryan A
May 14, 2021 7:44 am

In a saner more honest world, after the climate scam fell apart (and it already has but for the extension of all of the disaster predictions) Oreskes would be on the receiving end of the same type of lawsuits she is currently promulgating: “Oreskes Knew!”

Another example of the Left accusing others of what they themselves are doing.(sigh)

Reply to  Bryan A
May 14, 2021 11:02 am

The blogger at this piece examined the RICO angle several years back, aimed straight at Oreskes and her La Jolla workshop efforts. The original 2015 blog is gone, but there’s a nice Internet Archive preservation of it:

RICO-teering: How climate activists ‘knew’ they were going to pin the blame on Exxon

Last edited 1 month ago by Russell Cook
Reply to  Mark E Shulgasser
May 14, 2021 1:27 am

Oh. That explains all the “I believe”. Was a bit surprised that a scientist would be so faith-driven… But going by her memories on signing (or not signing, “I believe I did”) she’s not worth much as a historian either.

Nick Werner
Reply to  paranoid goy
May 14, 2021 12:45 pm

Hers is the kind of history that’s kind of fuzzy on matters she was directly involved in, but clear as Rocky Mountain air on matters she was never involved in. Climate doom pimps the lot of them.

oebele bruinsma
Reply to  Mark E Shulgasser
May 14, 2021 3:20 am

History is story stelling, that’s all.

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  Mark E Shulgasser
May 14, 2021 4:09 pm

I learned much about science working with scholarly historians. Procedures like the importance of fact, rechecking sources which should be as close to original as possible, lack of advocacy, examining locations and others. It has much in common with historical geology and evolution, cannot repeat it in its entirety. It can examine factual errors past and their relationship to the present, but not from the political viewpoints of the author. History is a difficult discipline and is (historically) objective. Academic departments don’t make much sense now.

Mark E Shulgasser
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
May 14, 2021 9:44 pm

I have nothing against history or history of science per se, but she is not a scientist.

Joel O'Bryan
May 13, 2021 10:40 pm

It’s all about getting a huge multi-hundred billion dollar lottery pay-out from big oil. Nothing more.
Charlatan Oreskes is simply angling (by lying under oath) for a tiny piece of the action on the shakedown.
A piece worth a few dozen millions of $’s.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 13, 2021 11:08 pm

She’s merely following the Marxist plan to overwhelm the courts with feckless legal confusion and added costs to the energy companies. The goal is to wear down Western economies with frivolous suits. It’s the grownup version of Micky Mann’s childish petulance and legal antics.

Patrick healy
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 14, 2021 12:32 am

You mean shake down as happened to BP with the Gulf of Mexico blow out which the Bush families company Halliburton caused?

MarkW
Reply to  Patrick healy
May 14, 2021 7:01 am

Wow, so much paranoia, so little cognitive ability. Your mother must be proud.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Patrick healy
May 14, 2021 9:54 am

Please explain how the Bush Families caused a well blowout.

Gary K Hoffman
Reply to  Patrick healy
May 14, 2021 2:24 pm

Halliburton is so yesterday’s bogeyman. And the Bush families seem to be on yours side nowadays. Please try harder to keep up.

Editor
May 13, 2021 10:52 pm

OK, here’s the claims that Oreskes ansd Supran made against Exxon:

ExxonMobil misled the public about the climate crisis. Now they’re trying to silence critics
Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes
Newly leaked documents reported by Bloomberg News show that ExxonMobil’s climate dishonesty is even worse than we thought
In 2017, we published the first peer-reviewed analysis of ExxonMobil’s 40-year history of climate change communications. We found that the company and its parents, Exxon and Mobil, misled the public about climate change and its severity. Central to this conclusion was the contrast between what Exxon and ExxonMobil scientists said in internal reports and scientific articles versus what Exxon, Mobil, and ExxonMobil told the public in non-peer-reviewed publications and in “advertorials” – paid advertisements dressed up to look like opinion pieces – in The New York Times.
Newly leaked documents, reported recently by Bloomberg News, show that ExxonMobil’s climate dishonesty is even worse than we thought. While the company privately has an internal “plan for surging carbon emissions…by as much as the output of the entire nation of Greece,” according to Bloomberg, ExxonMobil executives “shield their carbon forecasts from investors.” In other words, ExxonMobil drew up plans to expand fossil fuel production, internally calculated how much this would increase their carbon dioxide emissions, then failed to disclose those estimates to investors. Indeed, the company has never publicly disclosed its emissions forecasts. In response to the Bloomberg report, ExxonMobil claimed that the leaked documents were not up-to-date, but declined to provide “any details on the new projections,” according to Bloomberg.
First, ExxonMobil has not challenged any of our findings about the 187 documents analyzed in our original study. They do not deny that Exxon, Mobil, and ExxonMobil all had early knowledge that their products have the potential to cause dangerous global warming. Nor do they deny that Exxon, Mobil, and ExxonMobil all promoted doubt about climate science and its implications in order to delay action.
from
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/16/exxonmobil-misled-the-public-about-the-climate-crisis-now-theyre-trying-to-silence-critics

A lawsuit against Exxon was eventually filed in the NY Supreme Court, alleging fraud by Exxon to mislead the company’s investors about management of risks posed by climate change. The case against Exxon failed spectacularly, with the judge calling the case against Exxon “hyperbolic” and “politically motivated”.
More than four years of contentious litigation concluded this month when the Supreme Court of the State of New York released its judgment in the People of the State of New York v Exxon Mobil Corporation. The Court found overwhelmingly against the Attorney General of New York (the “Attorney General”), exonerating ExxonMobil Corporation (“Exxon”) from allegations that it engaged in “a long-standing fraudulent scheme” to defraud investors over management of business risks posed by climate change regulation.
The lawsuit arose from two 2014 Exxon publications titled “Energy and Carbon – Managing the Risks” and “Energy and Climate”. The Attorney General alleged that Exxon misled investors by representing that a “proxy cost” of carbon was universally used to evaluate the effect of environmental regulation on energy projects, when in fact Exxon used a different variable “GHG cost” for internally evaluating projects. The Attorney General alleged that Exxon’s capital investments were therefore riskier than investors were led to believe, that investors made decisions based on the proxy cost, and that securities were overvalued and artificially inflated.
The Attorney General’s case was based on two misrepresentation claims. First, common law misrepresentation charges, which required the Attorney General to prove Exxon’s intent to deceive, reliance on the misrepresentation, and damages. Second, statutory misrepresentation under the Martin Act, which is legislation unique to New York. These charges have a lower standard of proof than common law misrepresentation and required the Attorney General to prove only that a misrepresentation occurred and that the misrepresentation was material in the sale of securities. The Attorney General did not need to prove intent, reliance, or damages.
The trial did not go well for the Attorney General. Despite a four-year investigation, the Attorney General did not lead any evidence from any investor who claimed to have been misled by any disclosure even though the Attorney General had previously stated that it would call those witnesses at trial. In its closing statement, the Attorney General withdrew the common law misrepresentation charges.
At this point, the case got particularly interesting. Exxon objected to the withdrawal by the Attorney General and insisted that the court deliver its judgement – which it duly did.
In its written decision, the Court held that the Attorney General’s claims against Exxon lacked merit. The Court accepted Exxon’s explanation that it used the proxy cost of carbon and GHG costs for different purposes and held that Exxon had never misrepresented that fact. In particular, Exxon used the proxy cost of carbon to create a projection applicable to its global operations of the effect of decreasing energy demand resulting from environmental policies and to forecast future oil and gas prices. On the other hand, Exxon used the GHG cost more narrowly in order to evaluate the cost of complying with jurisdiction-specific regulation on specific projects. Exxon’s stock price was not impacted by the practice, as the Attorney General led no evidence to show that Exxon’s proxy cost of carbon or GHG cost altered the investment decisions of any investors or analysts.
The Court used strong language to criticize the Attorney General’s claims, calling the initial complaint “hyperbolic” and noting “politically motivated statements” by the former Attorney General leading up to the trial. By contrast, the Court stated that Exxon’s internal policies were carried out in a professional manner and that both executives and employees were “uniformly committed to rigorously discharging their duties in the most comprehensive and meticulous manner possible”. The Court noted that not a single Exxon employee was aware of any scheme to mislead investors about the way Exxon copes with climate risk.
from
https://www.mondaq.com/canada/climate-change/876064/exxonmobil-wins-climate-change-securities-battle-against-new-york-but-the-war-continues

The court report (very readable) is at https://climatelitigationwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/452044-2018-Op-12.10.19.pdf

Rory Forbes
May 13, 2021 11:03 pm

Naomi Oreskes is the perfect example of a Leftist apparatchik using what few legitimate credentials she has in the “social” sciences to further the plan to bring all western economies to their knees. She’s used her limited intellect and cursory understanding of climate to become the intelligentsia’s version of Bill Nye. In other words, just another lying Marxist fool with no knowledge of the science.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 14, 2021 11:09 am

She claimed to be hugely offended when Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe called her a communist. Problem is, when she retold the story — “the weirdest day of my whole life” as she describes it — various elements of it didn’t add up right.

Last edited 1 month ago by Russell Cook
Rory Forbes
Reply to  Russell Cook
May 14, 2021 2:40 pm

Good article. Thanks for that. The Left have always struggled with facts. They appear to have an aversion or even an allergy to them … same thing with science.

Tegill
Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 15, 2021 5:06 pm

There is the old adage that if you tell the truth you only have to remember one story to tell everyone, if you lie you have to remember every story you told and to whom. Most leftist prove on a daily basis they aren’t able to remember who they told what.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tegill
May 15, 2021 8:50 pm

You certainly got that right. Combine that with constantly shifting the goal posts and it’s wonder if they ever know what page they’re on.

dk_
May 13, 2021 11:21 pm

I’m sure that Exxon lawyers can take advantage of this. But can the citizens of the states who brought the suit have their Attorneys General removed from office or censured on this basis? After all, the AGs “knew or should have known” that there was a potential for fraud and blatant conflict of interest.

Last edited 1 month ago by dk_
Patrick healy
Reply to  dk_
May 14, 2021 12:37 am

Those AG were mainly parachuted in by Blomberg and Soros money. If I remember they are working pro bono alongside the real AG’s.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Patrick healy
May 14, 2021 4:04 am

I wonder if ole Naomi is the recipient of any Soros or Bloomberg money?

dk_
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 14, 2021 11:57 am

Most likely. But through legal cutouts and probably legal means. Need to find the cutouts and establish wrong doing piecemeal.

dk_
Reply to  Patrick healy
May 14, 2021 11:56 am

Then there is more than one AG per state? Perhaps I misused the term? The head official of law enforcement and criminal prosecution, appointed or elected, must be responsible to the people of the state for anything done by state’s attorneys, even if those are wished on them, or the outside counsels were brought on in a previous admin. But your point makes the parachutists and those who directly paid them liable to state oversight, too.
I really want to know, how does one get recall or impeachment paperwork going? I don’t think my state has an Inspector General over the head lawyer.

Neo
Reply to  dk_
May 14, 2021 7:17 am

Have any of these AGs notified the citizens of their jusidictions that their lawfare could affect the price and availability of hydro-carbon products ?

Herbert
May 13, 2021 11:47 pm

Editor,
Would you kindly indicate how many,(if any)of the #Exxonknew lawsuits in the United States have been successful to date.
They seem to be blatant attempts to extract billions from Oil Companies which are too canny to be blackmailed into extra-Curial settlements.
My understanding is that there are as many as 1000 percolating through various county and district Courts in the US and more than 20 in Superior Courts in various Districts.
I also believe that in none of the Superior Court cases such as San Francisco and Oakland v. BP and others have there been awards against the Oil Companies.
The reason for this is that Superior Court judges have unanimously ruled that the claims are NOT judiciable by the Federal Courts but a matter for Congress and International Covenants.
Moreover,as with Judge Alsup in the San Francisco v. BP et al litigation,the Courts have recognised the point made here that the Plaintiffs ignore the fact that they themselves are promoters of fossil fuels as are the public who freely use the petroleum products.

MarkW
Reply to  Herbert
May 14, 2021 7:04 am

Courts have also noted that there is no provision in law for courts to award money for damages that haven’t occurred yet.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  MarkW
May 14, 2021 10:02 am

That is possibly the strongest legal point of all. It’s truly amazing how many people fail to understand the purpose of civil law … the equitable redress of loss by a judicial award of compensatory damages. The courts cannot compensate for something that has not taken place. Essentially, there ARE no damages. Besides, the plaintiff must come to court with clean hands.

Reply to  Herbert
May 14, 2021 11:14 am

My count of what I term the “Exxon Knew”-style AGW damages lawsuits currently stands at 25 with an extra ‘asterisk’ one on top of that

Quilter52
May 13, 2021 11:53 pm

I have wondered at times by, when one of these lawsuits is launched, ExxonMobil or whoever else they are after at the time does not immediately withdraw their product from the market. They could apologise profoundly to the consumers whilst saying that they are withdrawing it because they have been advised to do so as a consequence of the government requiring them to mitigate the damages. If they publicly flood the airwaves with apologies but make it clear that its legal action that is done this, they might get the consumers to go after the morons that are starting all of this.

Also perhaps all gas stations could have photographs of a risk is and her fellow crazies and refused to serve them. That could also include making sure they can’t plug in their electric vehicles. After all most of that electricity is coming from fossil fuels too.

Reply to  Quilter52
May 14, 2021 1:39 am

Yeeesss, that’s what grown-ups with full mental capacity would do. Which makes me wonder; why don’t they? Is it maybe because this whole thing is co-ordinated, and this is just another scam to “extract value from the revenue stream”, subsidised by the taxpayer, because, shame, this is a strategically important industry, and the State has to bail them out?
Never assess a libtard’s actions by your own morals, their only morality revolves around destroying all morality. ..and of course you owe them for “liberating” you from your outdated and dangerous superstitions.

MarkW
Reply to  Quilter52
May 14, 2021 7:06 am

The problem is that such a move would be meaningless unless all oil companies do it at the same time.
However the only to ensure that all oil companies do this, would be for the oil companies to coordinate with each other.
Such coordination is, unfortunately, blatantly illegal.

jtom
Reply to  MarkW
May 14, 2021 5:36 pm

At the moment, all that would need happen is for Colonial Pipeline to announce they were planning a shutdown to avoid being sued for distributing ‘dangerous’ products leading to potential climate change. State legislatures throughout the South and Atlantic Seaboard would be falling all over themselves to pass legislation protecting the industry from such lawsuits.

ThinkingScientist
May 14, 2021 12:21 am

Perhaps Naomi and her cohorts should pop over to Saudi and try suing Aramco and see what happens.

Or maybe try their strategy in the Russian courts with Gazprom.

The Western world has quite literally gone mad

Redge
May 14, 2021 12:34 am

This comment is likely to get a lot of downvotes but here goes:

Where is the evidence?

Stating Naomi Oreskes is on a retainer is all well and good, but without evidence, it’s just conjecture.

If the shoe was on the other foot and the accused was Anthony, would we all be clambering to condemn Anthony without seeing the evidence?

Naomi Oreskes has confirmed she was paid an hourly rate to review some documents, that’s all.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Redge
May 14, 2021 12:49 am

Furthermore, in the same deposition that Oreskes acknowledged her work with Sher Edling, she also disclosed she previously had a retainer agreement with Matt Pawa, another plaintiffs’ attorney representing climate lawsuits and key participant in the La Jolla conference. Oreskes said:

“I agreed that I would be willing to be a consultant, and I believe that we – we had an exchange. I believe I signed a retainer agreement. I believe we discussed what my hourly rate would be.”

Look at the deposition. Evidence enough?

Redge
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
May 14, 2021 1:37 am

I scanned the deposition and couldn’t find any reference, do you have a page number as it’s in a format that can’t be searched?

TIA

LdB
Reply to  Redge
May 14, 2021 6:25 am

You obviously can’t read then … Try page 59 of her deposition item 16 & 17

Actually read from page 49 and she is in it up to her neck and her lawyer tells he to take the 5th a number of times.

Redge
Reply to  LdB
May 14, 2021 7:09 am

OK, got it, I withdraw my question

Reply to  Redge
May 14, 2021 11:22 am

Took me quite a while to find it myself, the thing that would help in this situation (I’m currently on the lookout for it) are word-searchable versions of her depositions. Oreskes, despite being a historian, has a rough time keeping her personal stories straight. I’ll be putting out a GelbspanFiles blog post on this latest development probably next week — within the CNN news item link in the Energy in Depth piece, CNN stated “Oreskes said she was paid for three and a half hours of work to review the historical accuracy of material for a legal brief by the law firm at issue and is not on retainer.” Problem is, CNN appears to be confused about which law firm is the current one “at issue” in 15 of the “Exxon Knew’-style lawsuits.

Last edited 1 month ago by Russell Cook
buggs
Reply to  Russell Cook
May 14, 2021 8:24 pm

This is why generations of parents tell their kids to tell the truth. It’s far easier to keep straight than a lie. Oreskes never learned that lesson.

whiten
Reply to  LdB
May 14, 2021 7:51 am

“…and his lawyer tells him to take the 5th a number of times.”

There corrected, I believe.
🤓

cheers

LdB
Reply to  Redge
May 14, 2021 6:31 am

Since you are a true believer Redge perhaps you cn explain why you shouldn’t have to pay reparation???

I would imagine you burnt and are still burn you own little pile of fossil fuel, even your own post her cost quite a bit of fossil fuel to do.

Redge
Reply to  LdB
May 14, 2021 7:19 am

Since you are a true believer Redge

Belief is irrelevant in science.

perhaps you cn explain why you shouldn’t have to pay reparation???

Reparation for what?

I don’t think CO2 is anything but benign and any warming is beneficial.

I do think mankind is responsible for some of the warming and not just the manipulation of data. Clearing forests (for palm oil! duh!), concreting over large areas with no thought for green spaces, etc., are manmade warming factors.

CO2, not so much.

I would imagine you burnt and are still burn you own little pile of fossil fuel, even your own post her cost quite a bit of fossil fuel to do.

And?

I’m grateful we have had fossil fuels to power our world and pray the do-gooders don’t get their way and drive us all into the 13th Century.

Just because I ask a reasonable question, doesn’t make me a warmonger.

Nullis in Verba and all that.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Redge
May 14, 2021 8:59 pm

LDB makes a gross mis-assumption, just because you asked a question. Classic knee-jerk reaction.

Redge
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
May 15, 2021 12:39 am

Unfortunately, it happens a lot on WUWT, especially with Nick, and seems to be increasing.

IMHO, we need to stop doing this.

WUWT is not SKS.

Ed Zuiderwijk
May 14, 2021 12:45 am

‘I believe we discussed my hourly rate.’

Pass me the sick bag please.

bonbon
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
May 14, 2021 2:09 am

Strange formulation – ¨I believe ¨ I said something. That looks sure like a lawyers trick. Is plausible denial just around the corner?

LoneWolf
May 14, 2021 12:59 am

Oreskes is a grifting dirtbag of the highest order.

MilocCrabtree
Reply to  LoneWolf
May 14, 2021 3:49 am

But, she’s damned good looking.

Scarface
Reply to  MilocCrabtree
May 14, 2021 8:09 am

Her picture is on the wall in our basement to scare the rats away. Works like a charm.

dk_
Reply to  Scarface
May 14, 2021 12:02 pm

Wow, I should think there’d be more.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  dk_
May 14, 2021 9:00 pm

You guys need to grow up.

John
May 14, 2021 1:18 am

hardly surprising
just in it for the money
extortion is the best and easiest money
Shame sleep joe and his cohorts wont litigates these low life

May 14, 2021 1:21 am

“I agreed that I would be willing to be a consultant, and I believe that we – we had an exchange. I believe I signed a retainer agreement. I believe we discussed what my hourly rate would be.”

I always make a point to read the whole article, on any site, no matter how boring or pathetic, before I comment. I think the quote above is enough for today, it tells me everything I need to know about this …person? At least we know it’s a believer, yeah?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  paranoid goy
May 14, 2021 4:06 am

That quote is where I stopped. 🙂

LdB
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 14, 2021 6:26 am

Yeah she is in up to her neck.

Andy Wilkins
May 14, 2021 1:24 am

I scanned through the legal document that outlined the motion to exclude Oreske’s testimony. Under cross examination Orsekes testifies to going to multiple climate conferences all over the place and proudly states that she has a “big house”.

So: fossil fuel use to produce energy is evil, unless you’re someone who needs to fly around the world to multiple climate gabfests and has a large energy-sapping home to heat.
What a hypocrite she is.

In addition, scrolling down the humungous list of publications, conferences, lectures, and books she has contributed to/been paid to produce demonstrates that there is a lot of money to be made in chatting sh*t.

MarkW
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
May 14, 2021 7:09 am

In the modern world, there is no need to fly around to attend gab fests.
The business world has been shifting to electronic conferencing for well over a decade.
If they actually cared about the environment, these “conferences” would all be held online.

Curious George
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
May 14, 2021 7:58 am

Why do you try to apply rules to Naomi Oreskes? Exceptional people do not obey rules, be it House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Governor Gavin Newsom. They visit closed restaurants and closed hair salons.

Forrest Gardener
May 14, 2021 1:25 am

Another test for the integrity of the US judicial system. Of course a legislature which was on the ball would put the issue beyond doubt but your legislative and executive branches appear hell bent on destroying your nation.

Dio Gratia
May 14, 2021 2:07 am

The first thing I thought of reading this was the Tears For Fears songs Everybody Wants to Rule the World.

Matthew Bergin
Reply to  Dio Gratia
May 14, 2021 9:31 am

Good choice but my thoughts were more of a 1971Three Dog Night song with a single four letter word title.😉

Charlie
May 14, 2021 2:54 am

by publicly fixating on consumer energy ‘demand’ rather than the fossil fuels that the company supplies,”

Yep, I’ve used oil companies’ products and wish to continue using them. What about Oreskes and Supran? Have they ever used an ICE powered car or a home heated by gas or oil?

Sean
May 14, 2021 3:23 am

Why is this news? Oreskes has been an advocate for a long time in this game. Look at the head of the IARC and the shenanigans with Roundup. He ignored his own data to declare the herbicide a carcinogen and that one person’s decision let loose a floodgate of lawsuits. Even the EPA has made statements complaining about the IARC’s action. Meanwhile the head of the IARC is making big bucks on retainer to legal firms for the call he made.

Tom Abbott
May 14, 2021 4:01 am

From the article: “I agreed that I would be willing to be a consultant, and I believe that we – we had an exchange. I believe I signed a retainer agreement. I believe we discussed what my hourly rate would be.”

“I believe”? That’s a strange way to put it. It sounds like she is trying to leave herself room to deny it. This is what liars do when they get caught and are trying to get themselves out of it.

Exxon ought to sue her.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 14, 2021 11:37 am

They may be working their way through her correspondences. Who knows if they have the leadership to ditch their politically correct stance on AGW and instead go for the jugular on the decades-old false accusation that ‘Big Oil colluded with skeptic climate scientists to spread disinformation.’ One of the smaller defendant companies in all the lawsuits might take that leadership role, though.

2hotel9
May 14, 2021 4:36 am

If she is trying to become one of the richest women in the world she should have married B Gates, cuz this ain’t gonna pan out to well for her.

whiten
Reply to  2hotel9
May 14, 2021 5:43 am

I believe, she still out of luck there, even now that Billy is divorcing, I believe.

I believe, there is a contractual agreement that
Billy can’t marry either Naomi or Mann for that matter, I believe,
as it will cost him the B.M.G foundation.
As it will offend dearly Mel.

🙂

2hotel9
Reply to  whiten
May 14, 2021 6:43 am

Yep, the Seven P Principle once again rears it’s ugly head. She has chosen poorly.

whiten
Reply to  2hotel9
May 14, 2021 10:37 am

Not sure, dono,
but I believe that a bombshell man like Billy can not remarry within the proposition,
of another bombshell man like Naomi or Mann…
better not, as
else dearly offending the X… and the legacy there.😷

cheers

garboard
May 14, 2021 4:41 am

since the Rockefeller fortune was amassed 100% from fossil fuels and they pioneered the fossil fuel industry they should be made to pay proportionately massive climate reparations ; like the sacklers for oxycontin . youre being funded by dirty FF money , Naomi .

DHR
May 14, 2021 4:57 am

“…thereby contributing to climate change.” Mr. Allison, you have drunk the coolade.

Steve Oregon
May 14, 2021 4:57 am

The World of Woke is a mob of limitless public deceit. Anything is possible.
Today’s outrage is insufficient tomorrow. New layers of aggressive mendacity arrive daily.

ozspeaksup
May 14, 2021 5:00 am

collusion and RICO should be applied

ResourceGuy
May 14, 2021 5:48 am

Follow the green lies.

Editor
May 14, 2021 7:20 am

The Rockefeller Family Fund is also the main funder of the Covering Climate Now news/propaganda cabal umping out hundreds of climate crisis stories around rhe world in a coordinated effort to shape public opinion.

Caligula Jones
May 14, 2021 7:33 am

Always nice to see what happens when people who opine in the media (mainstream or social) with impunity then have to swear in court that they are telling the truth on pain of perjury.

Of course, always sad to see judges who perhaps should have gone into social work, but we’ll take what we can.

Gerald Machnee
May 14, 2021 7:48 am

They have a chance to call her up and put her in her proper place.

Al Miller
May 14, 2021 9:05 am

Right out of the Communist Manifesto- lie, cheat and steal – whatever it takes to get your goal.

Gordon A. Dressler
May 14, 2021 9:52 am

Quote in the above article attributed to Naomi Oreskes:  “I believe I signed a retainer agreement.”

That simple statement tells you all you need to know about both the lack of ethics and the weasel-wording associated with Ms. Oreskes.

Bryan A
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
May 14, 2021 10:25 am

Well, if she BELIEVES she did, then to a Lie Detector she did, SOOOO She Did

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bryan A
May 15, 2021 3:45 am

Psychopaths have an advantage when taking a lie detector test.

Rob_Dawg
May 14, 2021 10:16 am

Let me quote from Harvard’s policy:

Conflict of InterestA conflict of interest exists when individual commitment to the University may be compromised by personal benefit. Employees are expected to avoid situations or activities that could interfere with their unencumbered exercise of judgment in the best interests of Harvard University.

In addition, it is considered inappropriate for employees to make use of University property or other resources, including time, to advance personal interests or activities during the course of their employment at Harvard.

—–

Seems pretty clear cut.

ResourceGuy
May 14, 2021 10:49 am

And this year’s Grubber Award goes to…….Naomi.

ResourceGuy
May 14, 2021 11:26 am

What will historians say in the distant future when they review the actions of historians in pushing agenda science for a fee. I’m sure they will look the other way for one of their own.

May 14, 2021 11:27 am

Even William Connolley (the Wikipedia weasel) doesn’t like Oreskes and Supran’s EXXON Knew campaign. He wrote a particularly nasty post on them:

http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2019/01/yet-more-bollox-from-oreskes.html

Shanghai Dan
May 14, 2021 12:45 pm

For example, the study alleges that the company’s public mentions of continued demand for oil and natural gas products are essentially an effort to shift responsibility for climate change onto consumers.”

Thus, if I have a massive coronary because I choose to eat 4 Big Mac burgers every day, it’s McDonald’s fault for giving me a legal product that I desired, it’s not my fault for failing to control my own diet.

I like where this goes…

I cannot cover my bills, it is clearly the Government’s fault because of the taxes they consume from my income. Thus I should be able to take them to Court because they impaired my ability to buy the new Air Jordan shoes!

Tombstone Gabby
May 14, 2021 12:47 pm

“… research that that omits keys facts, takes information of context, and uses data from biased sources.”

Maybe “… out of context…”?

Rud Istvan
May 14, 2021 1:49 pm

Oreskes is the reason I stopped giving to my alma mater some years ago. Told the major gifts people who kept flying down for me to buy them lunch or dinner that they were wasting their expenses and my time until she was gone. Harvard should have removed her in the same way and for the same reasons they got rid of ‘famous’ black studies professor Cornell West, who produced no scholarship in a decade there and who categorically and publicly refused to give any white student an A.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 15, 2021 3:49 am

“who categorically and publicly refused to give any white student an A”

Cornell is a racist. I didn’t know that Harvard had booted him. Glad to hear it. He’s just one more race-baiter on the Left, which already has far too many of them.

John Dueker
May 14, 2021 4:16 pm

John D Rockefeller started this through the Standard Oil Company, which parts of Exxon, BP, Chevron, etc are derived from. Why are the Rockefeller family not defendants in this case?

%d bloggers like this: