Russell Prepare dinner
What can I say about this newest November 22, 2022 submitting? Oh, …… brother.
It’s full of so many defective assertions and accusations that I’ll have to separate it into two components. It was filed by a legislation agency that appears to have no vital prior connections to the local weather difficulty and thus is categorized in my large listing because the sixth “independently-led” one. However is it actually? To borrow the phrases of 1 TV actor enjoying Sherlock Holmes, “there may be not sufficient info obtainable to reach at a conclusion” as as to whether this legislation agency had main help from the Sher Edling legislation agency’s boilerplate copy template (shared in primary kind all through all of its 16 filings), or if it merely blatantly plagiarized from these lawsuits whereas slathering on its massively problematic further accusatory content material.
One of many odd issues about this November 22 submitting by the Tennessee-headquartered Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, LLC legislation agency (an apparently new participant in the “Exxon Knew” lawsuits present) is how the six days-later press launch for it and a subsequent Reuters information merchandise have been noting how this was a “first-of-its-kind lawsuit search[ing] monetary compensation from oil and coal corporations for advertising and marketing and promoting carbon-based merchandise that they deliberately misrepresented to the general public.”
Ummmm ……. no. Simply … no. Each one in every of these “Exxon Knew” lawsuits, in a single variant or one other, claims the fossil gas trade knew the usage of their merchandise precipitated the hurt of catastrophic world warming as they created disinformation campaigns to cover what they knew, with the last word aim being to have the ability to declare — as revealed in secret trade memos — “victory can be achieved after we reposition world warming as principle slightly than reality.” That’s mainly it; some lawsuits inexplicably by no means talked about the “reposition world warming memos” though these seemed to be extra viable proof than the rather more lame “victory can be achieved” ‘truism’ memos. There’s actually nothing new in any respect on this newest Puerto Rico submitting, aside from its method to the essential accusation surrounding these two memo units, which I’ll element in Half 2. The plaintiffs allege coordinated racketeering. Supported by supported by excerpts from trade communications, no much less. Drawback is, who’re the actual racketeers within the “Exxon Knew” present?
On this Half 1, I’ll illustrate how the sentences and associated content material on this new one surrounding the 2 memo units is troublingly related – when not outright an identical – to what’s within the Sher Edling #16 lawsuit, Platkin v Exxon and that agency’s different copies, much like the best way I confirmed how that one shared its materials with prior Sher Edling copies.
✓ Enslavement to ye olde “Reposition world warming”memos — Test. The never-implemented ones falsely attributed to the Western Fuels Affiliation (WFA) “Info Council for the Atmosphere” 1991 public relations marketing campaign. At the very least the Platkin submitting will get the official one-and-only ICE identify proper. Puerto Rico, not a lot. The Sher Edling lawsuits repeat the principle “reposition world warming” part from one state/metropolis/municipality to the subsequent. Give the Milberg legislation agency some credit score for not having an identical textual content surrounding their accusation – they rewrite that accusation, placing the bit about “older, much less educated males” into a unique paragraph, they usually carry again the never-implemented viewers concentrating on phrase about “youthful, lower-income girls,” which has been absent in Sher Edling copies after its 2017 Imperial Seaside submitting (similar phrase Al Gore cherished a lot again in 1992, by the best way). What’s primarily the identical on this total ICE memos paragraphs for these two separate corporations? Each Sher Edling submitting cites the Union of Involved Scientists’ “Deception Dossiers.” Similar scenario, for the Milberg agency.
✓ What to see the place this Milberg Puerto Rico submitting is sort of practically word-for-word an identical with the Sher Edling copies in regards to the ICE marketing campaign allegations, however the place Milberg provides three phrases? It’s these “ICE adverts” — Test – those I described in my dissection of Platkin, the horribly degraded photocopy scans from Greenpeace, the place two of the adverts, “Rooster Little” and “Doomsday Canceled” have an ICE identify variant that was unsolicited. No must look into the scan copies I saved from Greenpeace years again, the Milberg legislation agency itself exhibits the unsolicited identify variant in one of many adverts, whenever you zoom approach into their submitting web page 111. They crop the underside of the opposite advert, although. The place have we seen such cropping earlier than? Oh, proper, the problematic “Rooster Little” element I first identified in my dissection of Sher Edling’s San Mateo/Marin/Imperial Seaside v Chevron filings trio. Each of those adverts have been by no means revealed wherever. However whereas the opposite one, “Most Critical Drawback,” was inexplicably and mainly disingenuously cropped by the Sher Edling agency, the Milberg agency consists of* the mainly unattainable to learn textual content … and shuffles the order of the photographs.
* (Relatively than add any useful, damaging readability to the ICE adverts scenario, the Milberg agency solely joins a hole-digging effort began by UCS again in 2015, and technically additionally the Sher Edling legislation agency. The place does the Milberg agency say the complete picture “Most Critical Drawback” advert and the others supply from? It’s truly unclear. The submitting’s prior web page footnote #363 is definitely for a cryptic “Might 7, 1991 correspondence from E. Erie to O. Mark DeMchele,” having no supply. It could possibly be a typo that was meant for the supra of UCS, which is #364 citing web page 20 of the UCS Dossiers that doesn’t point out the ICE adverts. UCS’ web page 19 does, displaying no illustrations of the adverts, as an alternative describing a “Flat Earth” advert that (doubtless sourced from Desmogblog’s copy of Naomi Oreskes’ 2008-era Powerpoint presentation) – was by no means revealed in any newspaper. Not acknowledged in UCS’ Dossiers compilation cited by Milberg, however seen elsewhere at UCS – specifically their PDF recordsdata hyperlinks – is the Pandora’s Field that this Milberg Puerto Rico submitting inadvertently opens up for the Sher Edling agency with their “correspondence from E. Erie to O. Mark DeMchele” bit. That’s seen inside their ICE docs scans PDF file, the place in its PDF web page 41, Milberg’s “E. Erie to O. Mark DeMchele is definitely Arizona Public Service’s De Michele and Edison Electrical’s Invoice Brier — as confirmed in UCS’ web page 35. In the meantime, the aforementioned “Most Critical Drawback” newspaper advert is seen in UCS’ PDF web page 47 with textual content on the backside. So the easy query is, when Sher Edling featured these an identical advert scans, from 2017’s San Mateo v Chevron to 2022’s Platkin v Exxon sourced out of the similar UCS PDF file …. why did they select to crop the advert textual content out of the “Most Critical Drawback” advert? On high of all that, why didn’t both legislation agency present a hyperlink to the advert in its full newspaper-published context the place readers might zoom into the textual content and resolve for themselves whether or not the adverts contained sinister disinformation? I do.)
However, I digress. In the meantime, onward within the 16 Sher Edling boilerplate copy filings / Milberg Puerto Rico comparability:
✓ Reference to the “Richard Lawson” memo separated by two or much less paragraphs from the “reposition world warming” memos, e.g. in Honolulu v Sunoco, which begs for bother with its quotation of Naomi Oreskes. And in Milberg Puerto Rico? Nearly practically an identical — Test. By the best way, who else appears to be like practically an identical to this? The supposedly “independently-led Metropolis of Hoboken v Exxon submitting. How ’bout that?
✓ Enslavement to ye olde 1998 American Petroleum Institute (API) “victory can be achieved” memos — Test. This set, regardless of being a set of primary truisms that could possibly be mirror-flipped to go well with Greenpeace, are so beloved that even two members of “the Squad” love them, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ilhan Omar (D-Mn). Within the Sher Edling pile, the’ve been enslaved to that set, once more, from San Mateo to Platkin, and even the Minnesota v API lawsuit they’re supposedly simply aiding has it. Of their boilerplate copies, they cite an innocuous-looking “doc cloud” weblink which, with simply a slight change within the components of the net handle, seems to be a doc add from Kert Davies when he labored at Greenpeace. MN v API simply skips that intermediary effort and straight cites Davies’ ClimateFiles web page. This Milberg Puerto Rico submitting is just not merely additionally enslaved to the “victory can be achieved” memos, they’ve turned it into a literal Federal case (maintain onto that collective thought till my Half 2 dissection). This submitting doesn’t regurgitate phrases virtually verbatim about these memos, however they do dig a extremely large gap for themselves once they don’t say in any respect what their supply is for the API memos is, and once they make the massively troubling assertion “Retyped for readability.” Gosh, no matter could possibly be mistaken with the awful scan copies the Sher Edling filings have been supplied with, or the supply of these scans?
✓ AG Platkin’s reference to a selected narrative about ‘Large Oil’ bankrolling local weather scientists Willie Quickly and Sallie Baliunas, e.g. in Charleston v Brabham Oil. Milberg Puerto Rico? Similar — Test, however with extra RICO conspiracy-angled phrases. Similar cited materials about Quickly and Baliunas — Test, however with various internet hyperlinks. By the best way, who else appears to be like practically an identical to this? The supposedly “independently-led “Vermont v. Exxon” submitting. No joke, which offers precisely zero quotation sources for any of its assertions.
✓ Yet another, to emphasise the purpose, on a shared doc – starting to present finish, from San Mateo to Platkin – that I noticed however haven’t beforehand pointed to in my dissections of the 16 Sher Edling boilerplate copies: 2017 San Mateo Joseph Carlson Exxon doc / 2022 Platkin Joseph Carlson doc, every going to the an identical innocuous-looking “documentcloud” supply for the memo. Milberg Puerto Rico? Reworded a bit, however however included — Test. However Milberg Puerto Rico skirts the hidden intermediary and straight cites Kert Davies’ Local weather Information web page. It’s the similar doc, right down to the inverted “College of Texas at Austin” label. Once more, the Milberg agency stirs bother by prompting the query of why Sher Edling appears to cover who their docs supply is a part of the time – the identical supply they acknowledged elsewhere, who has nugatory docs in his scans pile? Oh, wait, who else already stirred bother over two years in the past concerning the Sher Edling agency not precisely being absolutely clear on this “Joseph Carlson Exxon doc” scenario? Why, the supposedly unbiased Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP and Krovatin Nau LLC legislation corporations, since they eradicated the identical “documentcloud” intermediary of their Hoboken v Exxon submitting. Who else has the Carlson memo? The supposedly “independently-led “Connecticut v. Exxon” submitting … which offers precisely zero quotation sources for any of its assertions. How ’bout that?
See the massive downside right here, total? Who’s it that’s overseeing / writing / back-room selling / coordinating these lawsuits which are constructed fully on “Exxon Knew” about world warming because the ’70s (however not about cooling) and actually nugatory paperwork purporting expose how fossil gas executives hid this by repositioning world warming info as ‘disinformation principle’ and felt ‘victorious’ doing so?
Do we actually have a “wave” of #ExxonKnew lawsuits, virtually a doubling of communities suing Large Oil …. or might this entire pile be consolidated into one large single lawsuit titled “John Passacantando, Kert Davies, et al. [dba Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action / Our Next Economy / CIC] v. Exxon & every other relevant vitality corporations”?
————————————————————————
Keep tuned for Half 2: “The Coal Defendants’ publicity plan referred to as for putting these three scientists, together with fellow local weather change denier S. Fred Singer … in broadcast appearances, op-ed pages, and newspaper interviews by its public relations agency.” Oops. (Two questions: Isn’t there some sort of legislation in opposition to knowingly making false assertion with malice or with reckless regard of whether or not it was true or false? And has any plaintiff ever received a Federal case when their attorneys cite Wikipedia as an proof supply?)
