When I send news tips to influential investigative groups / reporters / legal profession analysts on how the “ExxonKnew” lawsuit filings have an enslaved reliance on the meritless “reposition global warming” memos to support their claims that the industry ran ‘disinfo campaigns,’ the one thing that worries me is how those people might respond with, “oh, come on – the enviros surely would not be so dumb as to put all their faith for the last two decades into just one single major accusation like that. And surely there’s more than one corroborating source for that memo set beyond what you say is just one source. You must be exaggerating on all of this.”
No, I’m not. Watch this, it’s a short Instagram video, only a bit over two minutes long:
“MANOSPHERE,” by “liaandtheworld,” April 8, 2026
– Except – if any viewers clicking on my link there bail out of this utterly frantic person’s diatribe after just the first 20 seconds because of her raving delivery style and irritatingly brief flashes of images she uses to support her points, I’d fully understand. So, to spare my readers from that discomfort, I’ve utilized a free online ‘A.I.’ video text transcriber to get text which can be read in its full context. I’ll also cut to the chase below for the specific quotes I need, since this person spends nearly the first minute and a half of her diatribe on “petro-masculinity,” which has absolutely nothing to do with the climate issue.
Her distraction tactic of showing ‘fossil fuel industry evidence’ to drive home her fundamental point – starting at the 1:20 point and not lasting any longer than the 30 seconds afterward – is really no different than the brief little sequence in Al Gore’s 2006 movie where he relies on the same ‘evidence’ to kill any interest viewers might have about what’s in skeptic climate scientists’ science-based reports. This social media influencer’s tangent about ‘settled science’ packs no punch whatsoever without the ‘industry disinfo campaigns evidence‘ she blitzes in front of her face. Click on my screencapture timestamp links after the quoted section below, to see the critical images she flashed on the screen (I’ve used someone else’s Facebook video shorts upload of her Instagram video, since the FB version since it shows time stamps where I’ve paused the video):
1:20 to 1:50 point: … we actually have evidence from fossil fuel PR that targeted male-coded audiences of climate doubt for decades. In 1991, internal documents from a coal and utility-backed campaign literally said their goal was to reposition global warming as theory, not fact.
And they identified the most persuadable audience as older, less educated males who weren’t active information seekers. So then what do you get today? Well, it’s the same doubt tactics that have been repackaged into lifestyle and identity content. The persuasion is not on the science, it’s a deeper-rooted identity persuasion.
She apparently believed the ‘evidence’ images she found or was more likely fed, without questioning anything about them. I did; here’s where each one implodes:
1:23 – that’s the “Chicken Little” newspaper advertorial, on for barely a half second, which was never published anywhere. It’s been a mainstay of countless accusations across the internet for years about ‘energy company disinfo campaigns.’ I detail that fatal fault situation at length here, it’s the ad with the cropped-off lower section which – despite that suspicious condition – is cited as coming from Kert Davies’ Climate Files website by the main law firm filing the most “ExxonKnew” lawsuits across the country. Where is the proof that’s inadvertently seen showing the ad was never published? At the old Greenpeace USA / Ozone Action scans collection. Prior to creating Climate Files, Kert Davies had previously worked at both enviro groups, as I showed in my Background post on the man.
1:27 – this is the Edison Electric Institute’s (EEI) Bill Brier letter to Arizona Public Service company CEO O. Mark DeMichele. The tan color rectangles down at the lower left indicate how this scan comes from Kurt Davies’ page at his Climate Files site; move the cursor over the tan box at the side and it generates a clickable link which goes to a page where this ‘document’ can be shared. However, the scan itself is gleaned from the old Greenpeace USA / Ozone Action scans which date from sometime back in the mid- late-1990s. Why this latest social media influencer chose to show it is baffling, because the letter itself – when read slowly in its full context either at Davies’ page or at the original old Greenpeace USA / Ozone Action scan – does nothing to prove the actual 1991 “Information Council for the Environment” (ICE) PR campaign contained any disinformation. Give her some credit for showing – however briefly – the scan page where Bill Brier’s name was legible. Fault the lawyers handling the (now dismissed) Puerto Rico v Exxon lawsuit for relying on the other EEI Greenpeace/Ozone Action page scan (albeit seemingly surreptitiously through copies of those scans by the Union of Concerned Scientists), where they misread the name to be “E. Erie,” as I detailed in my dissection of that lawsuit.
1:29 – this is the current Wikipedia page on the ICE campaign. Even her straightforward bit here leads to many more questions rather than provide killer information. As I detailed back in 2014 about its long-term history, it was first placed in Wikipedia by an individual apparently having much too close of an association with one of the early promulgators of the worthless, never-implemented “reposition global warming” memo. The current Wikipedia page at least spells out the ICE name correctly. For 18 years, it did not.
1:32 – this is not just any copy of the notorious rejected EEI strategies page memo suggestions; it’s Kurt Davies’ page at his Climate Files site, where his upload has annotated tan boxes with his notes about particular bits. But it’s the same scan page with the same photocopy dust marks that dates all the way back to when Davies worked at Ozone Action.
1:36 – her effort here unravels under hard scrutiny at several levels. First, this is a cropped version (hold that thought for just a moment) of the “older, less educated males” memo page which the old Ozone Action group made famous way back in 1996, it was part of the larger rejected “reposition global warming” memos set. I detailed that wipeout situation al length here, where I showed congressional testimony from 1991 on how the the actual ICE campaign never restricted its message ‘in a sinister way’ to any narrow audience demographic, the PR campaign goal was to tell everyone about the skeptic side of the issue, which the mainstream media was irresponsibly not reporting. Unlike her use of the just-above tan-colored annotation blocks seen in Davies’ Climate Files page for the “reposition global warming” memo phrase, her image here has blue highlighting. Davies’ page has that same memo page area covered over in a huge tan notes annotation block. Readers can click on his button to “View and download PDF” for that scan page, but it isn’t formatted in a way to permit a cursor to highlight any words. At Desmogblog’s copy of the 50-page Greenpeace USA / Ozone Action scans (it actually credits those two groups) readers can marquee words to create a blue highlight …… and if they choose, they can crop the image to chop out the exact same other words which undermine this “liaandtheworld” social media influencer’s claim that the name of the ICE campaign was “The Information Council for the Environment” and that the whole ICE campaign PR effort was a ‘man-splaining’ means of spreading disinformation.
Oops.
Thus the basic support for this entire 2 minute+ lecture by social media influencer “liaandtheworld” relies on to explain how the “manosphere” operates from the position of putting out disinformation – i.e. ‘older less educated men who reposition global warming as not factual’ ….. is based on outright disinformation. Made exponentially worse – again – by the fact that this specific memo section on illogically narrow audience targeting was never implemented. Funny how that works out.
Even more comical at the end is how this person showcased the main hallmark of far-Left politics: psychological projection.
The persuasion is not on the science, it’s a deeper-rooted identity persuasion.
Exactly. As I pointed out in my somewhat off-topic March 13 blog post, the climate issue has never been about the climate science. To borrow the words from the legendary Rush Limbaugh, it’s the enviro-Left who have a deep-rooted need to feel that they have value on Earth. That they matter.
So, once again, the collective enviro-activist community shows the world how their entire accusation about a ‘fossil fuel industry-led disinformation’ effort is a one-trick pony. When the gullible folks out there, particularly the youth believers, start saying “you mean to tell me you did not check the veracity of the accusation you hurled in this video that you wanted me to trust??!” … the collapse of the faith in these types of climate issue ‘influencers’ could be epic. But if these ‘influencers’ – no matter who they are or where they operate – decide to roll on the folks who fed them this disinformation, well, that’s when their lives will actually take on some value.
Problem here is, how are the gullible folks out there going to learn about this? While it might be entertaining to place this “liaandtheworld” social media influencer under oath somewhere under penalty of perjury if she lies after being asked how she came across the the “Chicken Little” / the notorious “reposition global warming” strategies memo page and the “older, less educated males” memo page, she might honestly say she doesn’t remember. I personally encountered that situation a year ago when I asked a hapless professor how he got that same basic accusation material. What I suggest concerning where the major new would erupt, is if people with major investigative influence would ask the big name accusers – Naomi Oreskes / the Sher Edling law firm / the Milberg Coleman law firm / Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse / (former) NM Senator Tom Udall where they got this same accusation material.
Apply enough pressure on those far bigger luminary names, and they may choose to roll on who it was who provided them with that worthless accusation material.
CO2-caused Global Warming/Climate Change should be considered a theory, not fact.
There is no evidence that CO2 is changing the Earth’s weather or climate. It’s a theory without proof.
As I posted on the Open Thread, no thank you. It’s never even gone through the falsifiable hypothesis stage
Exactly.
One of the fundamental principles of the classic Scientific Method has never been applied to the CAGW conjecture.
(Anyone, if I’m mistaken about this, please direct me to the published Null Hypothesis)
The phrase “a scientific fact” is a contradiction in terms.
See : Richard Feynman.
.
AKA “a conjecture” (pure speculation) or, at best, “a hypothesis” (internally consistent mathematically + no directly contradictory experimental results … yet …).
“Informed citizens for the environment” How about their scientists? Do either know the difference between fact, hypothesis, and theory? Seems like they confuse fact with much rarer laws or principles which are supposed to be better than theories.
I have a theory that the common/social language context derived definition (afloat on the fluidity of human language) of theory is actually hypothesis or conjecture.
I have a theory… translate to I have a brain fart (aka a wild idea).
Too much of this common language has corrupted science.
Try heat. Let’s have a heated debate about whether IR EM radiation is heat, and meanwhile take care of your dog who is in heat.
Theory? No. Conjecture? Yes.
Wow, after watching that video, and spending a moment to reflect on my own sorry past, I must confess to a surge of petromasculinity in 1978. That’s when I graduated college and took a job with Exxon at their huge refinery in Texas. I am so very sorry, ma’am, now that your video has made me search deep within my true self. What can I do now to make up for all the gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel we made? /sarc
But wait. There were quite a few female chemical and mechanical engineers in that same class of new hires. Were they suffering “petromasculinity” too?
Her final point in the video was, “We are long overdue for a new definition of masculinity and strength- one that is based on competence, protection, and long-term thinking.” Umm, ma’am, that was the classic definition.
That is all for now.
Oh, very nice summation at the end. And true.
“Mechanical engineers are predominantly male (approx. 90%) and White, with an average age hovering between 40 and 43 years. While the workforce is historically lacking in diversity, there is a steady upward trend in female engineering graduates and minority representation entering the field.”
“Chemical engineers in the United States are predominantly male and white, though diversity is increasing. The workforce has an average age of 40, with women making up roughly 26% of employed professionals.”
I think Larry Summers got himself into trouble a few decades ago trying to talk about -why- the engineering workplace is mostly male. No need to start the same troubles here. The data says what it says.
If I recall correctly, at my small college in eastern PA that was well-known for its engineering program, they had just graduated their first co-ed class in 1974. Then in ’78 there were two engineering grads hired into that same Exxon facility, myself (ME) and a female classmate ChE. She worked on the chemical plant side and I worked on the refinery side. So from our little school, we were 50/50 in a small sample. I say all this to get across the idea that women being welcomed into engineering has been the case for at least my entire generation.
[Edit – by the way, when was the last time a female college student was called a “co-ed” ?!?]
My quotes on demographics were Google AI summaries, which tend toward DEI, and the numbers also match what I’ve seen over several decades in another engineering branch. Most engineers with more than a few years experience are guys. Why? Unknowable with contemporary science. Certainly ladies have been ‘welcome in the club’ in America, but the largest trend I see is the end of engineering as an American vocation rather than diversity in American engineers. If ladies are to become American engineers, the clock is running out. They’ll have to find jobs across the Pacific soon.
Thanks for your reply. I wasn’t taking issue with those numbers. You might be right about the decline of “engineering as an American vocation.” But on the other hand, maybe folks are starting to wake up about unreliable energy and about the need for reindustrialization.
I taught Civil Engineering at Uni until a couple of years ago.
Of the top 10 each year I taught, there was generally around 3 or 4 females.
Quite a bit of diversity of country of origin amongst the males in the classes I taught..
I never met one Civl Eng student that was confused about their gender.
Agreed, the capacity exists. The puzzle that can’t be discussed is “why not then?”. ie:
“In 2024, women made up approximately 58.5% of all bachelor’s degree recipients in the United States.”
plus
“Women made up approximately 24% to 26% of U.S. college engineering graduates in 2024. While the proportion sits around 20% to 22% across overall engineering and technical degrees…”
equals
something else going on besides the ability to be top 10.
Civil engineers know how to identify plumbing.
Often know how to plumb, too. 🙂
When I was in college (1972 to 1977) I asked numerous female (co-eds back then) why they were not pursuing degrees in what is commonly called STEM today.
The answer? They did not want to work that hard -or- the social setting in the workplace would not be conducive to their desired lifestyle (aka, they did not want to hang out with a bunch of nerds).
It wasn’t that they were forbidden or discouraged, they just chose differently.
Be glad to get rid of, “If you are white, especially if you are white and male, you are a racist,” as well as, “If you are white, especially if you are white and male, you are a climate criminal” (large “carbon footprint”).
Hypothesis, not theory.
And since the hypothesis has failed, well…you know.
Hilarious! She is as gullible as she is pretty! And I notice that she uses fossil fuels every minute of every day of her life. Ignorant leftist hypocrite.
[“as gullible as she is pretty!“] WTF !!!
You need to go to Spec-savers
She’s like a demented, squint-eyed chattering chimpanzee on speed.
Although her last point, ” competence, protection, and long-term thinking.” is what we need (but never get ) from politicians of both genders.
She is obviously highly educated…..
…. in the subjects of Gibberish and Blather. !
Gender is category. Sex is biology.
Where are the facts that prove it is a fact?
And if it is not a fact but a theory, what does the theory say?
Go on, someone must have the wording.
No?
Must be just a hypothesis, then.
And another thing, what is the “manosphere” ?
Methinks she doth protest too much.
I thought the “manophere” was the whacky fantasy world that M. Mann created for himself and his “Cause” acolytes.
Well, WUWT did have a recent article on spherical cows. Perhaps the “manoshere” refers to spherical men? 😉
anything is possible in the whacky world of woke-folk I guess
In a world of spherical men, all men shop at Costco?
I have two hypotheses on what the manosphere is:
– One possibility is that it is another word for the nonexistent “patriarchy.”
-Another possibility is that it refers to a group of loosely affiliated internet bloggers and podcasters that focus on Issues important to men, notably someone named Andrew Tate.
Tate’s name and references to the manosphere come up a lot in in a certain genre of you tube videos that examine and react to women on tik tok videos freaking out about their lives. Many of the women in these videos have a psychosis that places men (invariably all men not a particular man)at the center of all the ills of the world, while simultaneously lamenting their inability to find the perfect chump, I mean Chad, who is tall, rich, and generous, for them to beta-ize.
Almost all have the same form factor and style as the video of that incredibly annoying creature talking into a makeup brush in the headline video.
All science is theories. Just that. Gravity is a theory. There are actually several of them, and none of them is settled science. Google “Hubble Tension”.
Ah – Gravity.
The thing with no counterpart(aside of Walter Russel) in our dual world that effortlessly bends the space, which is said to have no properties,up to millions of lightyears – the real spooky action at a distance.
I did find this post informative and thank the author for it.
I don’t know anyone that has ever heard of this TikToker Lia Newman (former U. S. youth climate negotiator). She holds a Master of Arts from Duke. Since when does youth and a degree make an expert? Admittedly, I don’t know many people and fewer in the crowd that might know of her. Further, the “big name accusers” (Oreskers and . . . ), except for the bumbling Sheldon Whitehouse, have no national prominence, so who cares if any of them ever claim to know where they acquired “accusation material“. To me, the question these folks might shed some light on is how they — all well educated — personally incorporated the CO2 hysteria reminiscent of the witch trials in the early modern period.
” youth climate negotiator”
is all you need to know.
Such a neomarxist Frankfurt School construct goes always along with a ton of BS/activism,
Thanks for the appreciation of my work and the basic point I was trying to get across. However, I must disagree a bit where you said,
Perhaps my mistake there was using the words “national prominence” when I should have used “national influence,” which is what former Senator Tom Udall had and is what the law firms filing these “ExxonKnew” lawsuits have. I’d say Naomi Oreskes actually has international influence, given her promulgation of the meritless accusations about “crooked skeptic climate scientists” to audiences in the UK and Australia. It’s possible she even got that accusation planted in the mind of Pope Francis, and she bragged of efforts to influence clerks for the Supreme Court Justices. She’s on retainer with the law firm that’s filed the most “ExxonKnew” lawsuits across the country and has filed Friends of the Court briefs (plural!) on behalf of that law firm’s plaintiffs where she repeats the same false accusations.
Major investigators need to care where she and the others got this accusation trash so that the main promulgators of it can be exposed for who they are and what they tried to do. Hint: you might want to wonder why Al Gore said Ross Gelbspan ‘discovered’ the memo set, when Gore was quoting from parts of it years before Gelbspan ever talked about it, and you might also wonder why Oreskes claims to be on a first-name basis with Gore when he did little more than briefly point to her 2004 Science magazine 100% science consensus study in his movie before using it as a segue straight into his accusation about the “reposition global warming” memo.
Manosphere – more invented online bolleaux for a patriarchy.
Social pseudosciences are like rising damp.
yep-makes my guns rust.
But she has no problem with going along with the Mann-o-Sphere global warming science actually is.
Maybe, if she’d take a closer look at official climate science she ‘d realize that
it is built from the scratch by men;
men who first started with the Ice Age Scare( Ehrlich,Holdren,Schneider),
before this Manosphere repositioned it as Global Warming Theory.
Rising damp that caused black mould !
If you live in that environment, you can get very sick, mentally and physically.
Mr Cook,
The problem is, that no one who would even watch that video (I didn’t) will see your rebuttal. Even if they did, they wouldn’t believe you for a nanosecond.
Ummmm …. did you catch what I said in my 4th paragraph where I said “I’ll also cut to the chase below …”? In a nutshell, I’ve watched the video, suffered through Naomi Oreskes’ screeching presentations and read her mind-numbing screeds, along with the non-science political corruption accusation trash in the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits …….. so you don’t have to.
Forgive me for a bit of a blunt question – do you have any awareness of how vulnerable the accusation about “industry-paid skeptic climate scientists working in disinformation campaigns” is to total collapse? You are aware that the climate issue only stands on two legs, “settled science” and “crooked skeptics,” yes? And from reading my guest post here that the particular accusation about the meritless memo set in the title is literally the best the enviros have in their arsenal, yes?
Technically, you are correct that “that no one who would even watch that video,” but not quite – it already gotten upwards of 1500+ views even before I wrote about it, and the enviro skulls full o’ mush who saw it will repeat her last bit about ‘older, less educated males‘ to anybody who will listen. But that was not my ending point here, it was how Naomi Oreskes, Al Gore, and the bulk of the “Exxon Knew” lawsuits across the country repeat that meritless memo phrase in connection with the meritless “reposition global warming” memo, claiming it all is smoking gun evidence of the fossil fuel industry deceiving the public.
You can either wave the white flag of defeat and say the enviro-left is hopeless, whereupon you yourself are part of the problem on not trying better to defeat the propaganda of the climate issue …. or you can be part of the solution by telling folks who may not know about it – yes, the ‘science’ of CAGW is weak, but the defamatory angle of the issue that’s enslaved to a set of never-implemented memos, is far weaker, traceable to just a tiny clique of enviro-activist promulgators.
I don’t like the other side.
At the crudest level, the historical origin of the greenhouse analogy was prompted by a solar system observation of the planets with atmospheres widely differing in size and composition.
A mind experiment using crude data and unreal conditions – take a sphere the size of earth with a perfect black body surface and in the Goldilock’s zone with stable insolation and calculate the temperature if it is naked and then if it had an atmosphere. Naked was too cold to originate or sustain life, with atmosphere it was within current range where life was thriving.
Then, for dumb non-scientific journalists, that was likened to the warmth inside a greenhouse. Not a theory about carbon dioxide, an exploration of planetary atmospheric composition and surface temperature conditions.
Aside: To my surprise, the above went to moderation!
I conjecture that one single word “n*ked” so shocked the AI overseer that a real human had to make sure I was not being lewd.
Thank goodness it was not because the AI thinks that “climate denial” is porn!
This is a version with a spelling mistake corrected.
At the crudest level, the historical origin of the greenhouse analogy was prompted by a solar system observation of the planets with atmospheres widely differing in size and composition.
A mind experiment using crude data and unreal conditions – take a sphere the size of earth with a perfect black body surface and in the Goldilock’s zone with stable insolation and calculate the temperature if it is naked and then if it had an atmosphere. Naked was too cold to originate or sustain life, with atmosphere it was within current range where life was thriving.
Then, for dumb non-scientific journalists, that was likened to the warmth inside a greenhouse. Not a theory about carbon dioxide, an exploration of planetary atmospheric composition and surface temperature conditions.
I want to reposition AGW as fantasy, not theory. There are no facts involved.
I have not read everything on this website, but my impression is that a large number of people who present articles, read the articles and comment of the material are rightly convinced that there is no global environmental crisis known to coming in the near future.
Shared convictions are:
So, there is no vestige of evidence that anyone but a tiny minority here denies that climate changes.
Now, by virtue of studies in physical chemistry, we know for certain that carbon dioxide exists in the gaseous state in the atmosphere under all natural conditions and that it is quite soluble in liquid sea water with the solubility increasing with the decrease in temperature of the sea water.
A vast catalogue of observations indicate to those who study the subject that evidence in the record in the rocks and stones and the old ice across millions of years that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen and fallen several hundred years AFTER the temperature of the oceans have risen and fallen.
So, amongst other causes it is certain knowledge that the level of carbon dioxide is caused by temperature changes and does not cause the temperature of the planet to change first.
So:
Why does it never occur to those that accuse “The Fossil Fuel Industry” of lying to people that there is a “Green Climate Change/Renewable Energy Industry” that (Gosh!) might actually be doing the lying and suppressing?