Oreskes' hug of the “victory” in Honolulu towards Sunoco – massive, massive, massive mistake. – Watts?

From the gelps clamping files

Russell Cook

The widespread news from Associated Press On July 28, it was that a hearing in Hawaii should take place the next day whether the lawsuit of the Honolulu against Sunoco Global Warming Damages complaint should be triggered because the “statute of the restrictions” of the case had somehow expired. The law firms of the accused legal technical minutia from all their earlier 8 months of effort to bring it out of the regional court and bring it to the federal court did not work. It seems that they try another maneuver. I say “by chance” because a day later, when I head both the ABC “Honolulus lawsuit against fossil fuel companies, I legally fight climate change as well as the AP original version to copy words from them. Poof – Oreskes has disappeared from both. But what can be seen on the Internet cannot be invisible. What's going on with this deletion? Fortunately, someone who was smarter when I was smarter an Internet archive version of the original AP story, whereby the two Oreskes sales were intact.

Not A particularly bright idea for the AP to say that Oreskes had submitted an opposition registration against the maneuver of the restrictions of the accused; Dumber is still to bury this fact that it never happened. However, this is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg in this special new situation.

Reiner “Streisand effect” for me. The readers here at yellow pan files will remember which we are talking about The Naomi Oreskes, from her self-proclaimed “experts”, click on this screen capture image. I have already described the fatal problem in her 2021 girlfriend of the court letter for Honolulu. When she had recently submitted something new in this case, I wanted to see how she had to start her career as a “industry plaintiff” at the end of 2007-2008 from Ye Olde “Reposition Global Warming” Memos.

Uhhh … Houston, we have a problem.

For all new readers who arrive in my blog, I will explain that the problem surrounds the fact that Naomi Oreskes was only one one-trick pony when it came to providing so-called “evidence” that the fossil fuel industry carried out disinformation campaigns. The infamous (it turned out that it turned out to be implemented) Memo's “repositioning global warming”, which was used by hand with the notorious newspaper advertising “Chicken Little” by “Chicken Little” (which, as it turned out, was never published somewhere), was not only the best evidence that she had for her charge, it was essentially that only Evidence that you in your 2007-2008 “You can argue with the facts” that the travel lecture presentation (I viewed this presentation here point-by-point presentation). Who knows why it was left out of 2010 from her book “Merchants of Doubt”, but she felt forced to repeat these accusations while she mentioned her current debut of this book at the time.

It was only when the first of their friends of the court selection in 2019 the second best “evidence” that the Enviro activists had about “industrial disinfo campaigns”, namely (which were never implemented), Memos achieved. This strange 12-year omission of her so many others of the Memos of “Sieg”-fell to me as inexplicable, and in my January 2025 I hugged “Naomi Oreskes” to create the victory that was achieved. Global Warming ”. I thought it was really uncharacteristic that she had to do a deeper examination why she decided that. Why everything in the world would she not Do you say something about your “best” evidence when you competed with this “reduction” brisk for the previous dozen years?

This question must be asked again in relation to your explanation in May 2025, which was presented to the Hawaii court. She never mentions anything that is assigned with her most popular accusations in her 42-page explanation. Otherwise, this is the cornerstone of the 4-element accusations, which can be seen in the copier lagons of the Sher Edling boiler plating, including Honolulu: Bam, Bam, Bam, BAM, Bam. Sher Edling Boilerplate Copy Copies are just as predictable.

Although she met with Sher Edling as an expert for “Branch Dissinfo campaigns” without doubts, she only has the last two in her explanation in the explanation:

• Ye Olde “Victory” Memos accusations (again, never implemented) in the Basic All-Decalations section, printing page 5, PDF file page 12
• In your own specific explanation, print page 18, PDF file page 45 -When quoting different sentences, it is still the same memo set, and due to the implementation it is worthless As proof that the industry orchestrated deception/disinformation campaigns have been available in the past or still take today. And who is your source there? Not just any old website of “Climate files”, on this website of the air conditioning files, which was previously directed by Kert Davies, whose Greenpeace highlighting of the Memos from 2013 is disguised in Sher Edling's action registrations with the location of the file under a harmless “Documentcloud” internet address location. That Kert Davies, who traces back to the old ozone campaign group in front of Greenpeace, the place where the old “repositioning of global warming” gave her her first, continued media traction. It does not matter whether people use Oreskes' preferred climate shares or the Greenpeace -Upload version. It is the same worthless memo set.
• In your own specific explanation, On the same side Immediately after the accusation of the “Sieges” Memos, Oreskes mistakenly tries the skeptical climate scientist Dr. Willie to bind to these memos soon. Who are your sources for this accusation? Footnote No. 63 will go to the New York Times on February 21, 2015 “Low connections to company money for dubious climate researchers”. Who was the source of the NYT? The not identified as an annoying Kert Davies. Footnote No. 69 goes to the British Guardian on February 21, 2015 “Work of the prominent climate change Denier was financed by the energy industry”. Who was the guard's source? Kert Davies. Who likes to explain in detail how the allegations are completely wrong? Dr. Willie soon.

  Note that Oreskes' JUST-Prior footnote No. 68 is for an article by Amy Westtervelt Washington Post, in which Dr. will soon be mentioned. However, this is that Amy Westtervelt, whose podcast source for her Olde “Victory” memos Kert Davies was and whose source has repositioned the memo “reposition global warming” for her. . . . . . . . . Wait for it. . . . . … Kert Davies. The footnote No. 67 from Oreskes goes to a George Monbiot 2006 Guardian piece Tangential via Fred Seitz. But is that George Monbiot, who wrote “Replation Global Warming” three years later and is his source for her there? Naomi Oreskes, who, in contrast to what he claimed, was never made available online everywhere.

On the website of Davies' Climate Files, the literal best “proof”, which he ever had for “industry disinfo campaigns”, has allegations in connection with the memo's “Reposition Global Warming”. The second best has always been the “victory” memos to today. Campaigns that Kert Davies and his former Greenpeace / former Ozone action boss put the idea, Dr. Willie soon accuses of accusing at least one prosecutor of the state's attorney for the current “Exxon” prison lawyer.

Davies' accusations of “industry orchestrated Disinfo campaigns” is without merit. By default, everyone who relies on him drives merit -free accusations based on their material. As I emphasized in my two-prior blog posts, the BBC seems to have accidentally / indirectly recognized that there was a fatal mistake in its own dependence on Kert Davies in its own allocation material.

By being accidentally / indirectly recognized by Naomi Oreskes the same accusation of the same allegations in May 2025, which submits Honolulu against Honolulu against Sunoco, that there is a fatal mistake in this accusation and – similar to the BBC – hopes that nobody will discover this? Finally, to emphasize the problem of these screen capture from their 2022 Amicus in the name of Honolulu, it was previously “evident”.

However, this does not mean that the collective collection of explanations against the accused fossil fuels without indication of the accusations of the “reputation of global warming” was. But the only instance does not answer any questions, it raises more questions.

The lonely instance lies in the explanation of Dr. Anthony Pratkanis; He is a self -described “experimental social psychologist” to describe what disinformation campaigns were. Five pages later within a long paragraph of fifteen supposed examples of disinformation campaigns, with not a single word, it is explained what the campaigns were, where it took place or what was imagined. Only sentences that Dr. Pratkanis is a contact point for disinformation campaigns in the fossil fuel industry at the end of his previous page? Naomi Oreskes. The own situation of Dr. Pratkanis not at all, is that he has also signed his explanation as correct, not less under the punishment of mone.

He may believe what he said exactly there that it was true where it is quite possible that he never questioned anything about it. The real question in this situation is whether Naomi Oreskes believes that everything she says is true. When she claims, “Exxon knew”, she knew that in the 1970s she may be impossible to use her products that cause global warming, in view of all reports about upcoming global cooling? Your own presentation of the science conference in July 2004 – offer only a few months before your great splash in climate protection – undermined Your current claim. Is it just so forgetful? She knows that her accusation against the deceased Dr. S Fred singer is so wrong that she may be overlapping into a complete defamation?

Do we have a hidden trend here? BBC deletes the expression “reduction global warming” from your specific podcast report? Oreskes, which is subject to a mention of these allegations in their opposition, to have submitted to the Hawaii court? The Associated Press deletes Oreskes' considerable appearance in your news about the hearing of Honolulu against Sunoco complaint?

Just ask. '

Like this:

How Load…

Related

Do you discover more from watts?

Subscribe to the latest posts to your e -mail.