Russell Cook
Nice of the 2/20/24 Chicago Sun-Times “Chicago sues five giant oil companies” article to inadvertently point directly to what the potentially lawsuit-killing combined problem is with this latest “ExxonKnew” lawfare effort: the apparent need to bring in the California law firm Sher Edling for assistance, and the collective idea that fossil fuel companies knew of the harm of “climate change” fifty years ago but hid that from the public. Same story at the Chicago Tribune. The same Tribune which reported fifty years ago (2024-50=1974) that the changes in the climate caused by the burning of fossil fuels was global cooling.
A climate changing to a cooler one in 1974. A climate changing to a hotter one in 2024. You can’t have it both ways. So much for elemental fact-checking / investigative journalism in 2024. And of course, neither newspaper could be bothered to check the veracity of accusations presented in this – yes it is – latest boilerplate copy filing straight out of Sher Edling’s San Francisco offices. How do I know it’s another boilerplate copy where Chicago’s own city lawyers very likely had little or no input to offer? Let’s dive into Chicago v BP PLC et al.: (my own PDF download file here, if that link ceases to function)
First, however, I was thinking Sher Edling would not be able to come up with any new way to hand its head on a silver platter to the defendant companies in any new lawsuit they wished to add to their boilerplate copy pile. I was wrong. They did — hold that thought until my checklist item about their citation source switch for their accusation against astrophysicist Dr Willie Soon.
✓ Chicago v BP claims Exxon et al. “knew” (hence, the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits label) as far back as the 1970s that they were harming the planet. Same basic accusation back in the 2017 start for Sher Edling with their San Mateo County v Chevron filing. In two places, identical words shared between this latest one and their first filing. Want to see an even closer matchup? Try Sher Edling’s Dec 2023 twin Indian Tribes lawsuits. That pair just left out the bit in Chicago about “in the minds of …” and instead had three other extra words. Want to see where all of those words were previously included? Try Sher Edling’s Honolulu v Sunoco. No need for your own municipality’s lawyers to get in the way, just bring in the San Fran law firm.
But just like I pointed out up above using one of the old newspaper clippings from Tony Heller’s RealClimateScience blog, I’ll point out again using one of his most recent finds, one way to stop the climate from changing to a cold one was – no joke – to dam the Bering Strait to keep the cold water way up north. 1974 geo-engineering. These days, the proposal is to pump particles into the air to induce cooling and stop runaway warming. What was the suggestion to stop runaway global cooling fifty years ago, though? Stop pumping particles into the air. Fail to do so – drought / extreme weather results, leading to famine / wars / climate refugees.
Exxon knew use of their products caused climate change as far back as the ’70s? Right. Climate change … to what?? And who is it that’s actually deceiving the public in this situation today?
What also proves Chicago here is just the latest boilerplate copy traveling circus act?
✓ Ye olde reposition global warming memos – shown on multiple occasions here at GelbspanFiles as the the memo set which was sent unsolicited to a public relations campaign that rejected the whole set outright, including its illogical narrow audiences targeting suggestions. The accusation surrounding the phrase has been a Sher Edling trademark from day 1. Similar to when I did my first cursory word searches into Sher Edling’s Indian Tribes lawsuits where the word “reposition” didn’t come up, I didn’t find it right away in this Chicago filing either. They didn’t turn it into a non word-searchable illustration snippet like they did in their prior twin lawsuits – they instead put the “r” between brackets. They did that once before (I noted in my Nov 2020 dissection of Maui v. Sunoco), while adding an “ing” after it (their Honolulu filing did not).
A small minority of text writers use those kinds of brackets who want to reproduce quoted phrases so deadly accurately that they can’t bring themselves to put an uppercase letter in the middle of a sentence. Kert Davies, operator of the Climate Investigations Center / Climate Files sites, doesn’t use brackets for the “reposition global warming” memos (e.g. at this page, showing a deceptively cropped, never-published newspaper advertorial) …. except for the brackets seen in his 2018 page here. Sher Edling, don’t forget, says they source documents, such as the “Chicken Little” advertorial, from ClimateFiles.
✓ ‘Advertorials’ attributed (falsely, in 2 of the 3 on Chicago‘s PDF file page 84) to the Western Fuels Association “ICE”-acronym public relations campaign. The same ads which the head of Sher Edling cannot describe accurately.
✓ Ye olde “victory will be achieved” worthless, never-implemented memo set. Nothing different here from any of Sher Edling’s prior boilerplate copy filings – their citation goes to the same innocuous-looking “Document Cloud” file link they used in all their prior filings, where with just four small changes to that weblink reveals – here’s that name again – Kert Davies uploaded it to Document Cloud when he worked at Greenpeace. This problem keeps looming larger every time Sher Edling repeats it. Davies, for any new readers unaware of it, traces back to the old Ozone Action group where the above-noted “reposition global warming” memos first began getting their major ongoing media traction.
🚫 Missing Richard Lawson memo – I pointed out this omission twist to the standard Sher Edling boilerplate pattern in my combined dissection of their identical twin Dec 2023 Indian Tribes lawsuits. The “ammo handed on a silver platter to the defendants” I spoke of there is the massively problematic Lawson memo citation source being Naomi Oreskes’ obscure book chapter containing it and other fatally flawed accusations.
She is on retainer with Sher Edling, an even bigger problem for them as I detail at length here, and in my dissections of her Friends of the Court filings she filed for the plaintiffs in these “ExxonKnew” lawsuits (her especially inept enslavement in those to the “reposition global warming” memos is an acute embarrassment).
Naomi Oreskes isn’t missing ✓ in this filing, however. Just like in the Indian Tribes lawsuits, Sher Edling features her in Chicago as an extraneous citation source surrounding a controversial IPCC topic. The potentially fatal problem for Sher Edling is Oreskes’ ties to a 1992-era Senate staffer, said to be associated (more than once) with Al Gore, over the “reposition global warming” memos. This could sink the entire accusation around those worthless memos. Investigators might want to explore whether one of the ‘municipality partner government attorneys’ advised Sher Edling that the Richard Lawson memo / Oreskes My Facts book chapter was something they didn’t want to draw attention to.
By this point, just like in the other Sher Edling boilerplate copy lawsuits, readers may see how Sher Edling isn’t merely brought into the local municipalities to offer random advice, they have every appearance of running the show. But let’s now examine what I mentioned up at the top — the firm’s latest ill-advised maneuver:
✓ “Bankroll” / “paid” / “funded scientists” – Sher Edling was very consistent from San Mateo County v Chevron in 2017 to October 2022 in Platkin v Exxon, regarding the use of the word “bankroll” to accuse skeptic climate scientist, Dr Willie Soon, of being industry-corrupted. When it came time for Sher Edling to file their September 2020 Delaware v BP lawsuit, however, they needed to switch their Smithsonian Institution press release citation source for the accusation to an Internet Archive version because the Smithsonian had taken their page about Dr Soon offline – Sher Edling continued using the Archive link through to their Platkin filing, and while their Dec 2023 Indian Tribes twin filings swapped the word “paid” for “bankroll,” the archive Smithsonian press release page citation remained. The Smithsonian Institution never said he was “paid” or “bankrolled” by any fossil fuel company, they simply stated they were beginning to look into whether there was a problem with his funding disclosures.
I thought it was hugely suspicious that the supposedly unrelated law firm of Milberg Coleman seemingly plagiarized Sher Edling’s collection of “bankroll” paragraphs for their Nov 2022 Puerto Rico v Exxon filing — albeit with an alternative weblink to the Smithsonian press release page. I thought it was significantly more suspicious when the also-supposedly unrelated Attorney General of California’s office apparently plagiarized the “bankroll” paragraph out of Platkin nearly word-for word ….. but rather than cite the Smithsonian press release page as all the others do, CA v Exxon cited something different out-of-the-blue: A Smithsonian Magazine article written by William Allman who cited widespread news about Dr Soon’s “corruption” revealed by Greenpeace’s / Climate Investigation Center’s Kert Davies.
Want to see what’s in the – again – supposedly unrelated CA AG’s CA v Exxon repeated word-for-word identically, including the citation switch to the William Allman article source? It’s easier here to just drop in a translucent blue rectangle at the point where the identical wording stops.
Chicago v BP. Sher Edling now has every appearance in the world of plagiarizing from CA AG Rob Bonta’s CA v Exxon …. who had apparently previously plagiarized from Sher Edling’s boilerplate pile.
If this latest wrinkle in the climate issue law fare is not one more huge gift on a silver platter to the defendant companies, piled on top of what I detailed above, I don’t what can be better. Dr Soon pointed out that the Smithsonian Institution didn’t tell anyone how their 5-year investigation concluded that he had not failed to disclose his funding properly. If he had, Kert Davies would have broadcasted the results from the mountaintops – the report would be in all of the Sher Edling lawsuits post-2020.
Enviro-activists are brimming with confidence that this ‘flood’ “ExxonKnew” lawsuits and the handlers pouring them out are all above reproach. What could possibly go wrong? If the case can be made that each – in domino fashion – should be dismissed due to a total lack of evidence for the claims about ‘industry-paid shill climate scientists,’ and that the core people behind these lawsuits should be investigated and prosecuted, those enviros will never see this coming.
Perhaps a civil RICO suit against Sher Edling and the rest of the La Jolla group? Or at least get them declared vexatious litigants, and ban further filings of the same losing suits?
A climate changing to a cooler one in 1974. A climate changing to a hotter one in 2024. You can’t have it both ways.
a stock market changing to a bear 1973 . a market changing to a bull in 87 to 2000.
you cant have it both ways?
what you cant have is no citations.
june 3 1975 the Tribune published a SPECULATION that measured cooling was caused by decrease in solar energy reaching the earth, caused by increased reflective dust in the air.
lieid Bryson, director of climate research at the University of Wisconsin, theorizes that pollution could be partly responsible for a global cooling trend in the northern hemisphere, in progress since 1951). The chill is slight by most standards’ a ch op in average temperature of a degree or two in some places, less in others — averaging only 1.8
It’s about time lawfare gets turned back on litigious creeps like this. So far with the oil companies they have been putting up with it but that won’t last forever. Unfortunately in today’s environment you need the right court location to make that happen.
The 5 oil companies being sued should simply give them what they want. No not billions of dollars but simply stop selling all fossil fuel products in Chicago. Once the imbeciles behind the suit realize they can’t drive their cars, or heat their homes maybe they’ll wake up (not woke up).
>> Chicago v BP claims Exxon et al. “knew” (hence, the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits label) as far back as the 1970s that they were harming the planet.
Members of various religions *know* various things with absolute certainty and are willing to go on crusades and Jihad over it.
As far as scientifically proven facts go, this law suit should be a non-starter as long as anybody judging them knows how bad the models back then were! Flat earth without global data on clouds or sea water temperature depth profiles.
Even current models, which are significantly improved compared to models 5 years ago or older (it gets much worse over time), seem to miss key features of the real world..
https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.coecis.cornell.edu/dist/f/423/files/2023/12/simpson23pnas.pdf
“Arid and semi-arid regions of the world are particularly vulnerable to greenhouse gas–
driven hydroclimate change. Climate models are our primary tool for projecting the
future hydroclimate that society in these regions must adapt to, but here, we present
a concerning discrepancy between observed and model-based historical hydroclimate
trends..”
Guess who will end up paying for it?
Everyone. Because everyone uses petroleum products.
It isn’t ‘a flood’ of lawsuits, just one copied over and over and over again. This should be prima facie evidence against these vexatious lawsuits and, like in many other countries, those that bring them should be made to pay defendant’s costs – that would cut these lawsuits back to virtually nil.
I think Chicago, and all the other jurisdictions bringing these lawsuits, are opening themselves up to an opportunistic plaintiffs’ lawyer who files a lawsuit, maybe a class action, asserting that Chicago continued, and continues, to use fossil fuels in its vehicles and in its buildings long after it became aware that they were contributing to global warming/climate change. By bringing its action Chicago has effectively conceded that there is harm being caused by burning the fuels, and that its own actions have contributed to the harm.
I don’t know how joint tortfeasors are treated in Illinois, but Chicago could end up being hoisted on its own petard.
Climate lawfare.
Filing the same defective ‘Exxon knew’ suit over and over on behalf of different plaintiffs is NOT going to lead to eventual success. Rather, it is one definition of Sher Edling insanity.
Every other attempt based on the 2011 laJolla meeting chaired by Oreskes planning to lawfaring Merchants of Doubt has also failed. MA, NY, USVI…
To prevail, for monetary damages you have to prove actual damage, and for injunctive relief you have to show imminent harm (damage). Nobody can do either, anywhere.
Sea level rise did not accelerate. Extreme weather did not increase. Pacific atolls grew in extent. UK children still know snow. Food production increased thanks to greening.
Chicago does not have a climate problem. It has a gangs and guns problem. It has a sanctuary city illegal immigrant problem. It has a no bail required for repeat criminals problem. Those are all self inflicted wounds the new progressive climate obsessed mayor is NOT addressing. Won’t end well. Is why both my kids families and my ex all moved out of Chicago to other states, and why Ken Griffin just moved Citadel from Chicago to Miami.
Separate more general legal observation. It is hard to get rid of lawfare. The reason is embedded in the Constitution and in the predecessor British common law. The presumption is, do not make it hard to file a grievance, rather let the courts sort it out.
In UK, the rule is plaintiff loser pays defendant court costs. Canadian example is Mann v Ball. Follows the prior common sense common law—a financial deterrant to lawfare. US not so, hence much lawfare.
What’s got the eco-worriers wetting their briefs is their failure to comprehend the work carried out by Exxon in the’70s.
When faced with a new problem that is not fully understood, at the time, what can be done to help define the boundaries of the problem is to carry out a senstivity analysis.
This works along the lines of if x happens then the consequences are predicted to be y.
You study a range of x to better understand y.
Now if y is inconsequential then the sensitivity analysis suggests that there may not be a problem.
It is my understanding that the issue of prior knowledge has arisen because those doing the original Exxon study managed to capture the current atmospherIc CO2 levels within the range of values studied in their sensitivity analysis.
The range of atmospheric CO2 contents studied were not predictions but what-ifs for the purposes of the study.
For the charge of prior knowledge to be proven then there would have to be verified proof of atmospheric CO2 predictions. The problem with this approach is that in 1970, without access to a time machine, there would have been no way of knowing what would happen in 2024,
Thus the charges of prior knowledge should be easily refuted.
Oh, be careful there, denial central.
Mickey Mann recently wiped your eyes for a cool $1 million.
Gotta make it real, folks.
Fantasies tend not to stand up in courts of law.
Every bite of food, swallow of drink has a negative effect on one’s teeth and strains one’s digestive system, at least putting some wear and tear on it. Further, waste products have to be dealt with by some means or another.
Most would agree that the benefits outweigh the negative consequences. Still, one is free to forego eating and drinking.
As I understand it, the Sher Edling La Jolla lawfair franchise concept was modelled on the successful tobacco industry law suits that netted hundreds of millions for the lawyers and participating states. So how’d that work out?
Tobacco companies still in business.Cigarettes went from <$2 to about $10/pack.Lawyers got rich.States got lots of money a fraction of which has gone to cover smokers health care.
Tobacco companies still in business.States jacked cigarette taxes and tobacco companies raised prices to pay off states. Price of a pack now ~$10 VS. $2.00 before – paid, of course by the still hopelessly addicted.Money used by the states for all kinds of stuff, but not much to pay health care costs of smokers.
In reality these law suits are just attempted extortion. No one expects or wants them to result in oil companies being driven out of business. They just want to collect their enormous contingency fees. Who cares if the price of a gallon of gas goes up 300 – 400%?
No body cares about the financial cost piled on smokers – they’re stupid and evil anyway. But I think a lot of people would be moved to some form of active resistance if gas becomes unaffordable.
Energy is dirty, no matter what kind it is. The idea of “clean energy” is a complete pipe dream.
These oil companies should pull their products from Chicago and see just how quickly this nuisance suit is dropped.
In every locale an oil company faces litigation they should announce to that area (population & government) that until the case is resolved they will forego providing any products or services as they would not wish to exacerbate the penalties should they lose the case.
Let those places go for a day or 2 or 3 without oil or gas or and of the benefits of petroleum and see how long it takes to dismiss the case.
Since they are accused of harmful activities, putting a hold on those activities would be quite legally defensible.