If I may suggest it, there is a far larger question to answer. The current collective "ExxonKnew" lawsuits (31, by my count here http://gelbspanfiles.com/?page_id=18 which now includes "Leon v Exxon") only have two legs to stand on: "the science is settled " and "the fossil fuel industry ran disinformation campaigns employing shill scientists to undercut the settled science." Set the science aspect aside -- does their accusation about skeptic scientists have any merit?
The core accusation across the board in these lawsuits are comprised of at least one if not four distinct elements, which I summarize in a single sentence: "Victory will be achieved when we pay Dr Wei-Hock Soon $1.2 million to reposition global warming as theory (not fact) via deceptive newspaper advertorials." As implausible as it may sound, my facetious summary is no joke, The bulk of the lawsuits are filed by the San Francisco law firm Sher Edling, and every one of what I term their "boilerplate copy filings" contain all four elements (my list of those is here http://gelbspanfiles.com/?tag=sher-edling-boilerplate with links to my dissections of each filing). Other supposedly 'independent' law firms / law offices have filings which rely on these identical accusation elements, "Leon v Exxon" oddly only relies on two of the four, as I detailed in my dissection of it here http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=18560 . All four of the accusation elements, as I explain at considerable depth at my GelbspanFiles blog, are meritless. The "reposition global warming" memos were never implemented anywhere, neither were the "victory will be achieved" memos. The 'deceptive newspaper advertorials' element is always seen hand-in-glove with the "reposition global warming" memos, but two of the ads shown in the lawsuits turn out to have never been published anywhere, while a third was published, but its ad text is cropped out of the lawsuit images because it contains no disinformation. Finally, Dr Willie Soon was not paid a dime by Exxon or any other fossil fuel company - the accusation aimed at him may have strayed into epic-level defamation territory.
The fatal flaw in all of these lawsuits is elemental: you cannot accuses someone of committing particular actions and have your case proceed to trial if a judge deems your 'evidence' of the actions is worthless. These cases across the board are in peril of being hit with Motions to Dismiss on that grounds. If one falls that way, the rest will fall in domino fashion, further exposing how the climate issue itself has only had two legs to stand on - "settled science" and "crooked skeptic scientists." This could turn into one of the biggest collapses of a political ideology in history.
"Who is paying for these lawsuits?" is a good question, but it needs to be expanded - who are the core people apparently promulgating the worthless accusation elements in such a way that the shared verbiage among the lawsuit filings looks like it comes from a central template? I explore that question at my blog as well: "The Plagiarism Problem Plaguing the “ExxonKnew” Lawfare Lawsuits — Summary for Policymakers" ( https://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=18393 )
This crap boils my blood.
Right on - and the new Trump Executive order is going to trigger a lot of new lawsuits - https://energynewsbeat.co/trumps-executive-order-declares-co2-non-pollutant-a-game-changer-for-energy-policy/
You think. How about DuPont next. Then the coal industry.
There is zero science to co nect a heat wave to CO2.
If I may suggest it, there is a far larger question to answer. The current collective "ExxonKnew" lawsuits (31, by my count here http://gelbspanfiles.com/?page_id=18 which now includes "Leon v Exxon") only have two legs to stand on: "the science is settled " and "the fossil fuel industry ran disinformation campaigns employing shill scientists to undercut the settled science." Set the science aspect aside -- does their accusation about skeptic scientists have any merit?
The core accusation across the board in these lawsuits are comprised of at least one if not four distinct elements, which I summarize in a single sentence: "Victory will be achieved when we pay Dr Wei-Hock Soon $1.2 million to reposition global warming as theory (not fact) via deceptive newspaper advertorials." As implausible as it may sound, my facetious summary is no joke, The bulk of the lawsuits are filed by the San Francisco law firm Sher Edling, and every one of what I term their "boilerplate copy filings" contain all four elements (my list of those is here http://gelbspanfiles.com/?tag=sher-edling-boilerplate with links to my dissections of each filing). Other supposedly 'independent' law firms / law offices have filings which rely on these identical accusation elements, "Leon v Exxon" oddly only relies on two of the four, as I detailed in my dissection of it here http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=18560 . All four of the accusation elements, as I explain at considerable depth at my GelbspanFiles blog, are meritless. The "reposition global warming" memos were never implemented anywhere, neither were the "victory will be achieved" memos. The 'deceptive newspaper advertorials' element is always seen hand-in-glove with the "reposition global warming" memos, but two of the ads shown in the lawsuits turn out to have never been published anywhere, while a third was published, but its ad text is cropped out of the lawsuit images because it contains no disinformation. Finally, Dr Willie Soon was not paid a dime by Exxon or any other fossil fuel company - the accusation aimed at him may have strayed into epic-level defamation territory.
The fatal flaw in all of these lawsuits is elemental: you cannot accuses someone of committing particular actions and have your case proceed to trial if a judge deems your 'evidence' of the actions is worthless. These cases across the board are in peril of being hit with Motions to Dismiss on that grounds. If one falls that way, the rest will fall in domino fashion, further exposing how the climate issue itself has only had two legs to stand on - "settled science" and "crooked skeptic scientists." This could turn into one of the biggest collapses of a political ideology in history.
"Who is paying for these lawsuits?" is a good question, but it needs to be expanded - who are the core people apparently promulgating the worthless accusation elements in such a way that the shared verbiage among the lawsuit filings looks like it comes from a central template? I explore that question at my blog as well: "The Plagiarism Problem Plaguing the “ExxonKnew” Lawfare Lawsuits — Summary for Policymakers" ( https://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=18393 )