Russell Cook
The widely shared Associated Press news on July 28th was that a hearing in Hawaii was scheduled to take place the next day on whether the Honolulu v Sunoco global warming damages lawsuit should be tossed out because the ‘statute of limitations’ on the case had somehow run out. The defendants’ law firms legal technicality minutiae maneuvers from all their prior 8+ months of effort to get it out of state court and into Federal court didn’t work, so it appears they are trying a different maneuver … but in ABC News’ July 28 regurgitation of the AP story, which I fortuitously screencaptured on July 29th, showed how Naomi Oreskes’ name just could not stay out of the overall situation. I say “fortuitous” because one day later when I reopened both the ABC “Honolulu’s lawsuit against fossil fuel companies leads climate change legal fight” story and the AP original version to copy words out of them – poof – Oreskes has vanished from both. But what’s seen in the internet cannot be unseen. What’s going on right there with that erasure? Luckily, someone smarter than me preserved an Internet Archive version of the original AP story, with the two Oreskes paragraphs intact.
Not an especially bright idea for the AP to say Oreskes had submitted an Opposition filing against the defendants’ ‘statute of limitations’ maneuver; dumber yet is to bury that fact like it never happened. However, that’s only the tip of the proverbial iceberg in this particular new situation.
Pure “Streisand Effect” for me. Readers here at GelbspanFiles will remember we are talking about that Naomi Oreskes, she of her self-proclaimed ‘expertise’ – be sure to click on this screencapture image here on that – concerning ‘particular smoking gun evidence’ of the fossil fuel industry’s efforts to deceive the public. I already detailed the fatal problem within her 2021 Friend of the Court brief for Honolulu, so upon reading that she’d very recently filed something new on this case, I wanted to see how she spoke of ye olde “reposition global warming” memos, the set that basically helped to launch her ‘industry accuser’ speaking career back in late 2007-2008.
Uhhh … Houston, we have a problem.
For any new readers arriving at my blog, I’ll explain that the problem surrounds the fact that Naomi Oreskes always was purely a one-trick pony when it came to providing so-called ‘evidence’ that the fossil fuel industry ran disinformation campaigns. The notorious (it turns out, never-implemented) “reposition global warming” memos, hand-in-glove with the notorious “Chicken Little” newspaper advertorial (which, it turns out, was never actually published anywhere) wasn’t merely the best evidence she had for her accusation, it was essentially the only evidence she had in her 2007-2008 “You Can Argue With the Facts” traveling lecture presentation act (I dissected that presentation here point-by-point). Who knows why it was left out of her 2010 “Merchants of Doubt” book, but she felt compelled to repeat that accusation while mentioning her then-upcoming debut of that book.
It wasn’t until the first of her Friends of the Court briefs in 2019 that she finally mentioned the second-best ‘evidence’ the enviro-activists have about ‘industry disinfo campaigns, namely the (it turns out, never-implemented) “victory will be achieved” memos. This strange 12-year omission of hers – when so many others were mentioning the “victory” memos – struck me as being inexplicable, and I detailed more about it in my Jan 2025 “Naomi Oreskes’ Embracing of the ‘Victory Will Be Achieved’” memos blog post. I brought up the situation at that time because I’d been alerted to one of her co-authored 2019 publications . . . . . which entirely omitted the “reposition global warming” memos. I thought it was really out of character for her to do, worthy of deeper investigation of why she chose to do that. Why on Earth would she not say anything about her “best” evidence when she led with that “reposition” accusation for the prior dozen years?
That question needs to be asked again regarding her May 2025 Declaration submitted to the Hawaii court. She never mentions anything related to her most beloved of accusations within her 42-page Declaration, which is otherwise the cornerstone of the 4-element accusation overall seen in the Sher Edling boilerplate copy lawsuits, including Honolulu: Bam, bam, bam, bam. Sher Edling boilerplate copy lawsuits are just that predictable.
Despite being on retainer with Sher Edling as – no doubt – their go-to expert on ‘industry disinfo campaigns’ (she’s not a climate scientist nor has any climate science expertise on that issue), she only brings up the last two in her Declaration:
- ye olde “victory” memos accusation (again, never implemented) in the basic all-Declarations section, print page 5, PDF file page 12
- in her own specific Declaration, print page 18, PDF file page 45 — while quoting different sentences, it is nevertheless the same memo set, and by virtue of never being implemented, it is worthless as evidence to prove industry-orchestrated deception/disinformation campaigns happened in the past or are ongoing today. And who’s her source there? Not just any old ‘climate files’ website, that Climate Files site, formerly headed by that Kert Davies, whose 2013-era Greenpeace upload of the “victory” memos is disguised in Sher Edling lawsuit filings by placing the file under an innocuous-looking “DocumentCloud” internet address location. That Kert Davies, who traces back prior to Greenpeace to the old Ozone Action group which is the place that gave ye olde “reposition global warming” memos their first, continuing media traction. Doesn’t matter whether people use Oreskes’ preferred Climate Files link version or the Greenpeace upload version, it’s the same worthless memo set.
- in her own specific Declaration, on the same page immediately following the above “victory” memos accusation, Oreskes falsely attempts to tie skeptic climate scientist Dr Willie Soon to those memos. Who’s her sources for that accusation? Footnote #63 goes to the Feb 21, 2015 New York Times “Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher.” Who was the NYT‘s source? The not-identified-as-previously-working-for-Greenpeace Kert Davies. Footnote #69 goes to the Feb 21, 2015 UK Guardian “Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry.” Who was the Guardian‘s source? Kert Davies. Who will gladly explain at length how the accusation is totally false? Dr Willie Soon.
Notice that Oreskes’ just-prior footnote #68 is for an Amy Westervelt Washington Post article which just tangentially mentions Dr Soon. But this happens to be that Amy Westervelt, whose podcast source for ye olde “victory” memos was Kert Davies, and whose source for ye olde “reposition global warming” memos was . . . . . . . . . wait for it . . . . . … Kert Davies. Oreskes’ footnote #67 goes to a George Monbiot 2006 Guardian piece tangentially about Fred Seitz. But this happens to be that George Monbiot, who three years later wrote about ye olde “reposition global warming” memos, and who’s his source about them there? Naomi Oreskes, who, contrary to what he claimed, never actually made memo set available online anywhere.
At Davies’ Climate Files site, the literal best ‘evidence’ he’s ever had for ‘industry disinfo campaigns” is the accusation surrounding the “reposition global warming” memos. Second-best has always been the “victory” memos – to this day, his Twitter/X account header photo features his Greenpeace-era degraded photocopy scan image. It needs to be further noted here in connection with the central 4 element accusation about ‘industry disinfo campaigns’ that Kert Davies and his former Greenpeace / former Ozone Action boss were pitching the idea of accusing Dr Willie Soon of taking industry bribes to at least one state-level Attorney General’s office before any of the current “ExxonKnew” lawsuits were filed.
Davies’ accusations about ‘industry-orchestrated disinfo campaigns’ is meritless; by default, anyone relying on him is pushing meritless accusations based on his material. As I pointed out in my two-prior blog posts, it appears the BBC has inadvertently / indirectly acknowledged that there was a fatal fault in their own reliance on Kert Davies for his “reposition global warming” accusation material.
By utterly omitting that same “reposition global warming” accusation in her May 2025 Opposition filing for Honolulu v Sunoco, is Naomi Oreskes also inadvertently / indirectly acknowledging that there is a fatal fault with that accusation and – similar to the BBC – hoping nobody spots this? After all, re-emphasizing the problem via this screencapture out of her 2022 Amicus on behalf of Honolulu, it was previously her killer offering of ‘evidence.’
That’s not to say, however, that the collective 195-page collection of Declarations against the fossil fuel defendants was devoid of any reference to the “reposition global warming” accusation. But the one instance of it answers no questions, it raises more questions.
The solitary instance is within Dr Anthony Pratkanis’ Declaration; he’s a self-described “experimental social psychologist” who says he was asked by the plaintiffs to describe what disinformation campaigns were. Five pages later within a lengthy paragraph of fifteen supposed examples of disinformation campaigns, there it is, with not a single word explaining what the campaigns was, where it occurred, or what was disinforming in it. Just sentences above that at the end of his prior page, who does Dr Pratkanis imply is a go-to source on fossil fuel industry disinformation campaigns? Naomi Oreskes. Not helping Dr Pratkanis’ own situation here at all is that he also signed his Declaration as being correct, under penalty of perjury no less.
He may sincerely believe what he said right there was true, where it’s quite possible he never questioned a thing about it. The real question in this situation is whether Naomi Oreskes believes all of what she says is true. When she claims “Exxon knew” as far back as the ’70s about the use of their products causing global warming, does she know that cannot possibly be true in the face of all the reports back then about imminent global cooling? Her own July 2004 science conference presentation – offered just months before her big splash into the climate issue – undermines her present-day assertion. Is she simply that forgetful? Does she know that her accusation against the late Dr S Fred Singer is so false that it possibly strays into outright defamation?
Meanwhile, do we have some kind of hidden trend here? BBC erasing the “reposition global warming” phrase from their specific podcast report title? Oreskes omitting any mention of that accusation in her Opposition submittal to the Hawaii Court? The Associated Press erasing Oreskes’ significant appearance in their news piece about the Honolulu v Sunoco lawsuit hearing?
Just askin.’
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sorry to say, I understood almost none of that. The general gist, I think I got: a bunch of liars referencing each other as sources for their lies. But the details? It reads like some insider gossip column, full of … stuff … that only makes sense if you’ve been a faithful reader the last umpteen years.
SR:
Agreed. Too many trees to be able to see the forest.
But we all recognize Oreske as just a climate grifter.This is her way of putting food on the table.
To me she is the equivalent of Paul Erhlich: the opposite of whatever either say is likely to
be nearer to the truth.
In the “woke-ism” universe Oreske’s doppleganger would be Robin D’Angelo.
I agree completely with your comment, Scarecrow. I am very interested but not prepared to take what looks like might be a huge amount of time to follow some of the links (which ones?) to gain a better understanding. To the author, Russell Cook: how about a “Cliffs Notes” version?
I’ve already provided that — did you miss seeing it?
Within that, I also explained the pitfall of providing just a short summary – folks will say “Oh really, and how do you back that up?” Like the old schoolyard adage, “show pics, or it never happened.” It’s not my duty to hand-walk people into the massively faulty “industry disinformation” angle of the climate issue, just as it is not the duty of Anthony Watts to hand-walk people into the temperature data manipulations / UHI angle, or the duty of Richard Lindzen / Willie Soon to hand-walk people through the angles of how CO2 works. If you don’t wish to explore what I detail at any depth, nobody is forcing you to do so, but at a rock-bottom level, if anyone you know says they heard something about Oreskes saying she’s an expert on ‘industry disinformation campaigns that supposedly said ‘victory will be achieved when we can reposition global warming as theory rather than fact,’ instead of being caught flat-footed saying, “I don’t know a thing about that,” you can instead say, “I know a guy who has a mountain of details on how that whole accusation falls apart.”
Having read about this a few times, albeit in brief, I think I understand a bit of it.
Basically, the original memos were not hidden, and suposed publications were never actually published. There was doubt about the whole global warming issue, and it was discussed by Evil Oil Moguls ™. I believe that those discussions (I can’t recall what format) weren’t hidden in any way.
The only ‘evidence’ of any deceit is that produced by the same usual suspects, and each of them ends up referencing one of the others. Media (monbiot & Gruaniad), Greenpeace and Soakes, in the main.
When outed as being invalid evidence, it’s apparently memory-holed.
I have to admit to not following the court battle as I have no real interest in it.
I think I am going to have to put this into “ye olde” ChatGPT and ask for a summary.
Did you minimally click on my first “ye olde” link to understand why I use that at my GelbspanFiles blog? Were you unaware that I already explored how ChatGPT does literally nothing more than amalgamate of bits it gleans from the internet, but clearly demonstrates no intelligence behind what it says? Did you know I already offer “Summaries for Policymakers” – a dig at IPCC SPMS, by the way – at my GelbspanFiles blog? Were you aware of my blog at all before today, which covers the only other leg the entire climate issue has to support it, namely how the smear of skeptic climate scientists crumbles to dust? The climate issue does not stand on just one leg of “settled science,” in case that is something you had not fully considered.
Russell Cook needs to lay off the minutia in which nobody is interested. He has always come off as a crank. It doesn’t help legitimate efforts to attack the unscientific nature of the CliSciFi scam.
The devil, my friend, is in the minutiae. These charlatans get away with it if the minutiae is not examined and exposed.
See the M&M examination of Michael Mann’s chalatary if you doubt this.
No, the minutia is fine; but it needs to be explained to those of us who haven’t been following the mess. The Cliff notes version is what’s needed: more, not less.
You are able to prove that … how, exactly? Back in late 2022, I explained to you what the overall situation was with the climate issue, it is a two-front war, over claims about “settled science” and “industry paid liars-for-hire scientists.” Did you even make the smallest of efforts to comprehend that?
The ‘IPCC/Al Gore science’ is indeed weak, but science on our side tends to sail over the heads of the greater public. The “crooked skeptic scientists” accusation is vulnerable to total collapse around the core clique of people who’ve promulgated it to pure defamation levels while getting rich from it in the process. The 4 central accusation elements in their push are totally without merit. Nobody, even the true believers in the environmentalist side, like to be conned. They get furious when they discover they’ve been lied to this entire time about that ‘industry corruption / industry disinformation’ angle. But I can’t go into any of the law offices for the defendants in the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits nothing more than a one- or two-paragraph summary of this angle, and I certainly can’t do that going into U.S. Senate or House Oversight investigations into this, I need to back it up six ways to Sunday.
What’s your response if someone who doesn’t follow the climate issue asks you about whether Naomi Oreskes’ accusations are true? Do you just say, “Duh, I haven’t the foggiest.”? Do you add, “Whatever you do, don’t read a word of what that Russell Cook guy writes, he’s a crank.” If they ask, “How’s he a crank?,” Do you just say, “Duh, I haven’t the foggiest, actually“?
Sir, if you aren’t part of the solution on that first question above by at least minimally directing the person asking it to who does know the answers, that doesn’t help legitimate efforts to attack the collective unscientific, emotionally-driven nature of the CliSciFi scam.
One more thing: Last month, Cal Beisner asked me to contribute a guest post to his Cornwall Alliance website, which was based on an info-laden email I’d sent to Dr David Legates (Cornwall’s Director of Research and Education) about what I uncover in the political accusation angle of the climate issue. Roger “Tallbloke” reproduced one of my latest GelbspanFiles blog posts a couple weeks back at his “Tallbloke’s Talkshop” blog. A year and a half back, the guys – Chris Horner and the rest – at Climate Litigation Watch prominently mentioned and linked to what appears in my blog midway down in one of their blog posts. In July 2024 midway down in his ClimateDepot post about the ludicrous ‘climate murder’ situation, Marc Morano prominently mentioned my blog post contribution information on that.
For the benefit of the WUWT reading audience here, . . . . . I wonder if you could bless us with what your definition of “nobody” is.
Calling the global warming claims a theory is to grant them a promotion they have not yet earned.
They are at best a hypothesis, and more aptly, mere conjecture with no facts or science supporting them.
Global Warming from adding CO2 is a reasonable hypothesis in itself, and is supported my the physics when examined in isolation. Unfortunately for the hypothesis, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny when the following are taken into account:
1. The main cooling mechanism of the surface is convection and the hydrological cycle, predominantly evaporation and condensation. Radiation is a bit-player.
2. Adding roughly 0.75% of greenhouse gases cannot sensibly have a momentous effect. It’s unlikely to be measurable. The entire ‘greenhouse’ effect is theorised to only be about 30K in total. This gives a maximum possible addition of about 0.25K, which isn’t practically measurable.
A. That’s assuming that CO2 is as powerful a ‘greenhouse’ gas as water vapour, which it isn’t, and
B. Additional effects of ‘greenhouse’ gases are linear, which they aren’t.
Even it it was possible, however, the ‘Catastrophic’ aspect of CAGW is not even a proper conjecture. It’s pure fiction. Tipping points, for example, just can’t exist, or they would have tipped already from any warming.
And even then, the Anthropogenic aspect is still dubious. The levels of CO2 follow warming, as the great profit Al Gore demonstrates in his wonderful graph (famously using a cherry-picker for unintentional irony). That implies that natural warming cycles are causing CO2 to be outgassed from the oceans.
“Adding roughly 0.75% of greenhouse gases cannot sensibly have a momentous effect. It’s unlikely to be measurable.”
Indeed, has never been measured. Certainly not for its radiant effects, and the thermal ones are lost in the noise.
I would find a shorter and more concise post more persuasive. This meanders and is very difficult to understand. Prof. Oreskes is also difficult for me to follow.
Oreskes is also difficult for me to look at. Just sayin’…
That’s mean. Nevertheless, I giggled and gave you an up vote. That’s because I’m a child at heart! A mean and vulgar little child.
To those complaining about the detail in this post: it’s cut’n’pasted from a specialist blog, whose readership well understands all the minutiae being discussed. We at WUWT may not get it all, but it wasn’t originally aimed at us.
Here’s the thing to get about Oreskes: She has been lying about oil companies and distorting their take on human-caused global warming for years.
And I’m sure she’s made a good living at it, too.
Like I implied at my SPM on the woman, it’s unlikely that she would have attained her “ski bunny” status (item #6 there) if she had remained merely an ordinary professor of history with some geology field work experience.
And the most annoying thing about all this, she has a B.S. degree in mining geology from the Royal School of Mines at Imperial College (London). She should know better
It’s why I suggest that her foray into this issue has been suspect all the way back to the beginning. Why is she on ‘a first name basis with Al Gore,’ and why do her narratives of who and what propelled her into the climate not line up right?
I truly appreciate your words here. The thing that truly saddens me about some folks on our side is how they naively believe that if we just keep hitting the overall (and otherwise lacking in science knowledge) public with enough pure science, the climate scare will suddenly drop dead one day. As we can all see from Trump’s EPA withdrawing the Endangerment Finding, the automatic reaction from the entire eco-zealot left and their complicit legacy news media is that the science has long been settled (100% settled, as Oreskes herself would tell them) and anything out there from skeptic scientists is bought & paid for by Big Oil. “Oh,” says John or Jane Uninformed Citizen, “that explains why those skeptic scientists say what they say.” And the story for them ends right there. The golden opportunity is right there for our side to tell the public about how that accusation has always been one big con job that the legacy news media never questioned. What saddens me is when folks on our side think Oreskes is nothing more than some unpleasant-looking shrill speaker who wrote some book, while being unaware that she is a major influencer, worming her way into the Vatican, into lawyers’ offices, into clerks offices at the Supreme Court, and into the judges’ reading material who oversee the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits . . . . . where she bases her accusations on literally worthless industry memos and other totally false accusation material.
I’m glad when folks see my work who are unfamiliar with it, and rather than write it off from having a lack of intellectual curiosity of what’s behind the smear of skeptic climate scientists, they take a minute or three to click on my links to see where they lead – and then see a world open up concerning the sheer depth of the effort to impugn the credibility of the skeptics, such that they then try to alert influential people who could investigate deeper and put a stop to all the defamation of scientists; our guys, who only ever just wanted the public to know that the IPCC, Al Gore, Greta et al. don’t actually have a science-based leg to stand on.
References are made to “reposition global warming” memos and the “victory” memos. But after reading through the article, I’m still confused as to what those memos contain. Why not quote the relevant parts or at least summarize them for novices like myself?
“Why not quote the relevant parts”
That’s a good idea. The pertinent part of the memos are just a sentence or two.
“Background: The WORTHLESS ‘reposition global warming as theory‘ ‘leaked memos’”
“Background: The WORTHLESS 1998 American Petroleum Institute ‘Victory Will Be Achieved when …’ leaked memo”
This WUWT guest post is a verbatim reproduction of my blog post at my GelbspanFiles blog, which operates on the basis that returning readers there are already fully aware of the above two posts, along with my various refresher notes/links in newer blog posts on what the meaning of each memo set are and how the false accusations about them crumble apart around the core clique of enviro-activists who’ve pushed those accusations since the 1990s. WUWT’s basic objective, by linking straight back to my blog site right at the top, along with linking to my prior WUWT guest posts in the “Related” section below the guest post, is to prompt people to explore deeper into my website for other info or to answer questions on the what, how, who, and why behind the smear of skeptic climate scientists.
“Naomi Oreskes always was purely a one-trick pony”
Even with my perverted mind, I can’t imagine anyone turning a trick with her, yuk !!
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%2Fid%2FOIP.1CUhxKk1YMIzjjvIrTDVOwHaHY%3Fpid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=8eb4cd4aa12025cc100681db12adabc06e9f420ea5351e211d19d2e95658fb9b
Glad you said that, so I wouldn’t have to. 🙂
This post amounts to a one page bibliographical reference take down of the “97% of climate scientists agree” fairy tale: everything you need to know is right here–just follow the links. No, you may not like to read dictionaries but when when you want info, there it is–a one post proof for a climate change propaganda industry.
Now then, what about earth rotation hitting a century high top speed?
I hugely appreciate your saying the obvious – which I have highlighted in boldface. Years back, I loaded one of my blog posts onto a tablet for a relative to easily read, a person who otherwise didn’t give a rip about the climate issue. Upon reading a particular line stating something quite damaging about an enviro-activist assertion against skeptic scientists, the relative turned to me and said, “you have no proof of that,” to which I directed my relative to touch a finger to the clickable link on the tablet which opened up a new page showing the specific point in my line was indisputable. My relative – sad to say – could not be bothered to go any further beyond a too-quick zip through my blog post, and thus walked into a self-made trap of implying I was “all show and no go” on what I wrote. The real “all show and no go” people in the climate issue are those who say skeptic scientists were paid to work in disinformation campaigns … and they continue to get away with this so long as nobody with major influence / investigative power knows how to deliver a bulletproof beatdown on what these mobsters have been doing for the last 25+ years.
“But what’s seen in the internet cannot be unseen.” There’s always the Wayback Machine. It never forgets.
Nothing prior to 2002 based on a couple of checks.
Oh, must have started then?
I do not have a precise date when it was established.
I searched for reports from the mid 1970s and all that was presented had the earliest date of 2002.
You are referring to the Internet Archive “Wayback Machine” website itself, correct? It has 1996-era scans of the old Ozone Action website, scroll down to the “Case Study #3 Information Council on the Environment” paragraphs here in particular. Ozone Action was the group that paved the way for the notorious “reposition global warming” memos to gain real news media momentum as an accusation against skeptic climate scientists. Back in 2008-’09 when I first began trying to figure out what those memos were all about and who exactly ‘discovered’ them, basically everyone on the internet was crediting ex-Boston Globe reporter Ross Gelbspan for that in one form or another, with the lone exception being Australian enviro-activist Sharon Beder. She said Ozone Action ‘obtained’ them. Ozone –who? There was zero info on the regular internet on who they were. As I described at GelbspanFiles nearly a decade ago, it was my discovery of the Internet Archive at that time which led me to finally finding the memos in their full context buried within Greenpeace’s documents scans archived. As though they were a state secret Greenpeace didn’t want anybody to read. Figuring out what Ozone Action was additionally led me to find out who led it. Yeah, that guy, and his former co-worker.
Here’s Grok’s summary:
Summary of the Article: “Oreskes’ Embrace of the “Victory Will Be Achieved” Memos, Redux, in Honolulu v Sunoco – Big, Big Mistake”
Author and Date: Written by Russell Cook and published on August 2, 2025, on Watts Up With That?, a blog focused on climate skepticism.
Overview and Main Thesis: The article criticizes climate historian Naomi Oreskes for relying on unimplemented industry memos—specifically the “victory will be achieved” memos—in her expert declaration for the ongoing Honolulu v. Sunoco lawsuit. This case, filed by the City and County of Honolulu against major oil companies like Sunoco, seeks damages for climate change impacts, alleging the companies engaged in disinformation campaigns. Cook argues that Oreskes’ use of these memos mirrors her past emphasis on similarly ineffective “reposition global warming” memos, undermining her credibility and the lawsuit’s claims. He portrays this as a “big mistake” because the memos were never executed, thus failing to prove any orchestrated deception by the fossil fuel industry.
Key Arguments and Details:
Important Quotes:
Author’s Conclusions: Cook concludes that Oreskes’ shift in focus inadvertently highlights the weakness of her core accusations, potentially dooming the lawsuit. He urges scrutiny of these “meritless” claims and their origins, portraying them as part of a broader, unfounded narrative against the fossil fuel industry. The piece ends by questioning media edits removing Oreskes’ name, implying possible embarrassment or backpedaling.
Thank you. And please pass along my thanks to Grok, too.
That right there is dead wrong. Hardly different than the false statement the non-intelligent ChatGPT did in the example I showed in my Jan 2024 blog post. It’s why no faith or reliance can be put in A.I. at the present time for providing accurate information. It takes actual intelligence to spot in my work how Oreskes is enslaved to two separate ‘industry memo sets’ to make false claims about them, and it takes intellectual curiosity to delve deeper into how that and other crippling problems undermines Oreskes’ credibility. Rely on “A.I” to simplify intensive details for you, and the roadmap you follow may direct you right off a cliff.
The Associated Press is no longer a valid news organization, it is a for profit aggregator of opinion mongering designed to generate income as they readily admit.
“Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.” –Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride
The important takeaway is that those who champion these meritless lawsuits to force onerous policies on citizens in a democratic republic rather than go through the legally established process—debate and consent by elected representatives of the citizens—are autocrats. They are the enemies of a free people and should be treated accordingly. It is not surprising that people who resort to undemocratic means to compel their fellow citizens to obey their capricious diktats also resort to subterfuge to get their way. They are bad people.
I am posting this gem in my Earth section of my forum because it is a worthy article to read.
Worthy Articles to Read
LINK
Thank you for your long-term support!
What the BBC has done here is not so fondly known as BBC stealth editing. That is, abandoning the usual practice of leaving a note about a change, leaving readers unaware that there has been a change nor aware of a reason why any change was necessary. I see a chain of inquiry from Colin at the BBC to Oreskes to Davies to who knows else desperately seeking validation of the memos. And the result is Oreskes seemingly abandoning them. What a racket. Good work, Russell.