{"id":280733,"date":"2023-09-27T18:14:26","date_gmt":"2023-09-27T16:14:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=280733"},"modified":"2023-09-27T18:14:39","modified_gmt":"2023-09-27T16:14:39","slug":"people-of-the-state-of-california-v-exxon-mobil-corporation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=280733","title":{"rendered":"People of the State of California v. Exxon Mobil Corporation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From GelbspanFiles.com<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Russell Cook<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Throw another one onto the \u201cgrowing number<\/a>\u201d (growing number!<\/a>) of \u201cExxon Knew\u201d-style lawsuits which insinuate that \u2018Big Oil\u2019 knew the burning of fossil fuels harmed the environment but deceived the public by employing \u2018shill\u2019 climate scientists in \u2018disinformation campaigns\u2019 to say there was no harm. This latest Sept 15, 2023 filing<\/a> appears to be no different than the 31 other \u201cExxon Knew\u201d lawsuits I\u2019ve dissected<\/a> where it fits a pattern of repeating (plagiarizing?) material out of the others, from dubious \u2018science certainty\u2019 assertions to corruption accusations worded carelessly enough that they potentially stray into reckless disregard<\/a> territory. I\u2019ll get into how this latest one fits that pattern, but first, let me illustrate how the \u2018news reports\u2019 about it reinforce the problem that we no longer have an objective news reporting media, we have a propaganda media telling the public \u2013 working at the most basic of intellectually dishonest<\/strong> levels \u2013 about these lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sift though enough of the \u2018news reporting\u2019 about this lawsuit and the impression soon forms that, well, finally California has entered the fray of climate litigation to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for the harm brought on by catastrophic Clima-Change\u2122, inadvertently implying that while it\u2019s late coming to the party, it\u2019s late punch will be devastating.\u00a0Associated Press<\/a>: \u201cCalifornia\u2019s legal action joins similar lawsuits<\/em>.\u201d\u00a0CNBC<\/a>: \u201cCalifornia\u2019s complaint joins a wave of climate litigation<\/em>.\u201d\u00a0Reuters<\/a>: \u201cit\u2019s ominous for oil firms that the state has joined others<\/em>.\u201d\u00a0Politico<\/a>: \u201cCalifornia\u2019s legal action joins dozens of similar lawsuits<\/em>.\u201d E&E News: \u2018Watershed moment\u2019: California enters climate litigation fray<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The 9\/16\/23 National Public Radio online article<\/a> continued that basic theme, but went one increment farther by asking \u201cWhy Now?<\/em><\/a>\u201d as though California had been waiting for some particularly opportune time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That was the wrong question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The correct question is \u201cWhy Again??<\/em><\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wasn\u2019t the two<\/em><\/strong> separate same-day filings back in September 2017 of People of the State of California <\/strong>v. BP PLC, et al<\/em>. in San Francisco Superior Court and Alameda Superior Court<\/a> more than adequate enough to get the point across?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Weren\u2019t \u201cThe Peoples of CA v Big Oil\u201d lawsuits filed by the San Francisco Sher Edling law firm between Sept 2017 and January 2018 for six California cities more than adequate enough? Aren\u2019t the ten additional lawsuits filed by Sher Edling from Hawaii to Delaware approaching pure California-influence overkill? Isn\u2019t the Sher Edling assistance into three more supposedly \u201cindependently-led\u201d lawsuits<\/a> starting to look like \u2018California\u2019 is the \u2018man who came to dinner and now won\u2019t leave?\u2019 Does Sher Edling\u2019s self-admitted takeover<\/a> of those two California Superior Court lawsuits end up indicating that \u201cCalifornia\u201d is no late-comer here at all, but instead is the possibly \u2018over-70-percentage-gorilla-in-the-room\u2019 of all<\/em><\/strong> the current \u201cExxon Knew\u201d lawsuits? Was the unsuccessful attempt to shoehorn that law firm into Florida<\/a> lawsuits an indication that the whole U.S. \u201cExxon Knew\u201d climate litigation is approaching almost an entirely California-influence effort?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Enviro-critics and semantics police critics will yowl, \u201cThe reports meant the entire state, represented by its Attorney General! The prior \u201cPeople of the State of California\u201d lawsuits in 2017 were not represented by the CA AG but instead the two major city AGs!<\/a><\/em>\u201d True. The commentator for the \u201cCalifornia is suing big oil. Why doesn\u2019t Colorado?<\/a>\u201d article made that distinction for his own state, but didn\u2019t get around to noting until his seventh paragraph that Colorado \u2013 in a technical sense \u2013 had already entered the game<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But stop and think about that. Those two city attorneys and their pro hac vice<\/em> attorney assistant Matt Pawa<\/a> (that<\/em> Pawa of Kivalina v Exxon<\/em> fame<\/a>) misinformed everyone on who the actual plaintiffs for their filing were? Plus, why shouldn\u2019t the states with their own AGs who filed \u201cExxon Knew\u201d lawsuits not<\/em><\/strong> get nationwide credit for launching a \u201cwatershed\u201d lawsuit, such as New Jersey (with its Sher Edling pro hac vice<\/em> help<\/a>), or Minnesota (ditto about Sher Edling<\/a>), or Delaware (& Sher Edling<\/a>)? \u201cWell . . . . those states are just not California!!<\/a><\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

News media reporters are being intellectually dishonest with both the public and themselves if they believe this State of California v. Exxon<\/em> lawsuit is any kind of \u2018first\u2019 for California overall. It\u2019s also quite clear from their \u2018reporting\u2019 that they have no intellectual curiosity about whether the central accusations in these have any merit \u2014 that Exxon knew runaway global warming was caused by the use of their product, and that Exxon colluded with skeptic climate scientists and other skeptic \u2018shills\u2019 in disinformation campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So on that latter note, let\u2019s examine where this lawsuit shares fatal faults \u2013 just like the dozen+ similar lawsuits, which have suspect citations for their corrupt activity accusations. As loyal readers at GelbspanFiles know, this can get really repetitive, so I\u2019ll just cover three fatally faulty claims which potentially could prompt any one of these lawsuits to be dismissed for being devoid of evidence to back up the claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, with just a few exceptions among the other 28, nearly all of these lawsuits are enslaved to both ye olde<\/em><\/a> notorious \u2018leaked industry memos\u2019 known as the \u201creposition global warming<\/a>\u201d set and<\/strong> ye olde<\/em> 1998 American Petroleum Institute \u201cvictory will be achieved<\/a>\u201d set. The former set is absolutely the best the enviro-activists have in their arsenal to accuse fossil fuel execs of running sinister disinformation plans, the latter comes in as a weak second-best. Neither were ever implemented, they are worthless to serve as evidence because of that<\/a>. In a flippant illustration, I put them together into a single silly indictment phrase to show how the Puerto Rico v Exxon<\/em> lawsuit fit the pattern<\/a> of enslavement to them. Massachusetts v. Exxon<\/em> is enslaved singly to the \u201creposition global warming\u201d memo set, as I noted in my dissection<\/a> about the filing referring to it in an oddly cursory manner<\/a>; nobody uses language like that, so it was unmistakable what the intent was. My dissections of District of Columbia v Exxon<\/em><\/a> and Connecticut v. Exxon<\/em><\/a> describe how each<\/a> of those only featured<\/a> the \u201cvictory\u201d memo set as its cornerstone evidence about industry disinformation campaigns. The prior 2017twin The People of CA v BP<\/em> lawsuits did that, too<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s odd how those few lawsuits only chose to rely on the far less sinister-looking memo set. CA v Exxon<\/em> makes that same strange choice<\/a>. Notice in particular the innocuous-looking \u201cDocumentCloud\u201d link in footnote #109 for the memos. Where\u2019ve we seen that before? Every single one of the Sher Edling filings<\/a>, where, for unknown reasons so far, that law firm seems reluctant to share how Kert \u201ctell the guards his name is Roland!\u201d<\/a> Davies was the person at Greenpeace who uploaded them to DocumentCloud a decade ago<\/a>. Davies, who traces back prior to Greenpeace to the old Ozone Action group<\/a> which is the place that gave ye olde<\/em> \u201creposition global warming\u201d memos their first, continuing media traction<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, this CA v Exxon<\/em> repeats the narrative about a 1977 presentation<\/a> made by James Black to Exxon, which supposedly proves Exxon knew with absolute certainty as far back as the 1970s that burning fossil fuels caused global warming. In my web browser, due to a possible glitch, the DocumentCloud link this filing cites for the report displays a blank page. There\u2019s more than one way to skin a cat, as the old saying goes. I can at minimum drop the link into a Google search and see how the result spells out a portion of the page; Google displays the same thing in its text-only Cache result. The link opens on my smartphone. Who uploaded that page?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Roland C.<\/a> \u201cKert\u201d Davies<\/a>. Davies<\/a>.<\/strong> Davies.<\/em><\/strong><\/a> Those orangy smudges up at the top right of the document scan<\/a>? Same seen right at his Climate Files page for the James Black Report (I get the same blank page glitch in my old computer\u2019s browser \u2013 here\u2019s the screencapture from my smartphone<\/a>). Question is, why didn\u2019t CA AG Bonta\u2019s office dispense with the \u201cDocumentCloud\u201d link and just link straight to Davies\u2019 Climate Files page? They already cite his pages eleven times<\/a>, why not once more for the \u2018most damaging industry memo evidence\u2019 AG Bonta has?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As I showed in my dissection of Charleston v Brabham Oil<\/em><\/a>, all of the Sher Edling boilerplate lawsuits feature the Black Report, but give them credit for linking straight to Climate Files<\/a>. I also noted there how David Middleton\u2019s September 2020 WUWT guest post<\/a> analyzed the many faults of the Black Report, including its \u2018cartoonly absurd\u2019 graph<\/a> predicting temperature outcomes that simply aren\u2019t happening at the present time. But that\u2019s only part of where this latest CA v Exxon<\/em> and the other lawsuits go wrong on their claim that \u2018Exxon Knew\u2019 for certain that fossil fuel usage would cause catastrophic global warming<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s a gigantic hole in that claim, big enough to drive a Mack truck\u00a0factory<\/em>\u00a0through. There\u2019s no way possible Exxon could have known their products would cause global warming in the face of rampant reports across the spectrum back then on the potential for runaway\u00a0global cooling.<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0Over at Tony Heller\u2019s blog (when efforts\u00a0fail to erase his blog<\/a>\u00a0completely off the internet), he can describe for hours on end how the years prior to the late 1980s\u00a0were awash with reports of global cooling<\/a>. Even the TV sitcom \u201cBarney Miller\u201d\u00a0had an episode in 1977<\/a>\u00a0in which the brainy detective character explains the effects of killer cooling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Third, CA AG Bonta\u2019s office dug a hole for themselves even deeper than all the prior \u201cExxon Knew\u201d lawsuits with this filing\u2019s new \u2018evidence citation\u2019 twist for its accusation that skeptic climate scientist Dr Willie Soon is \u2018on the payroll of Big Oil to spread disinformation<\/em>.\u2019 I didn\u2019t have an opportunity to mention it in my 2018 dissection of Boulder v Suncor<\/em><\/a> or my prior post followup<\/a> on that lawsuit\u2019s handlers having an apparently troubling association with Sher Edling, but the Boulder<\/em> filing essentially accused<\/a> Dr Soon of taking bribes from Exxon \u2026 sans any citation sources to support that accusation. The supposedly also \u2018independently done\u2019 Vermont v Exxon<\/em> lawsuit did the same thing<\/a>, just without mentioning Dr Soon. As I showed in my dissection of the Sher Edling Delaware v BP<\/em><\/a>, all of their boilerplate copy lawsuits had the specific word \u201cbankroll\u201d in their accusation against Dr Soon, relying on a 2015 Smithsonian press release page as their evidence that he didn\u2019t fully disclose his funding, where from Delaware<\/em> onward to the last in their line, New Jersey AG\u2019s Platkin v Exxon<\/em><\/a>, they switched to citing an Internet Archive version of that press release. Notwithstanding that the Smithsonian press release<\/a> merely stated that Smithsonian was only beginning<\/em><\/strong> its investigation of Dr Soon\u2019s funding, of course. Only. <\/strong> Beginning.<\/strong><\/a> Allegations of wrongdoing are not proof<\/strong> of wrongdoing. The Oregon county Multnomah v Exxon<\/em> filing \u2013 a seemingly plagiarized copy of Puerto Rico v Exxon<\/em> as I detailed in my dissection of Multnomah<\/em><\/a> \u2013 featured the same \u201cbankroll\u201d accusation that Puerto Rico<\/em> had, but the twist there (having the Sher Edling \u201cbankroll\u201d accusation repeated too similarly to be a coincidence) is that both<\/a> of those lawsuits<\/a> inexplicably had the \u201cLegiStorm\u201d page\u2019s copy of the 2015 Smithsonian press release. LegiStorm is a database of Capitol Hill staffers<\/a>, not an archive site for museum press releases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\u2019s the egregious twist in the CA v Exxo<\/em>n accusation against Dr Soon? AG Bonta\u2019s office didn\u2019t use an Internet Archive version of the Smithsonian press release. They didn\u2019t use the wacko LegiStorm link. They didn\u2019t point to the Smithsonian press release at all. They cited<\/a> a SmithsonianMag.com<\/em> 2015 article<\/a> about the news of Dr Soon\u2019s \u2018undisclosed $1.2 million Exxon bribe.\u2019 The article author only goes so far as to say the New York Times<\/em> broke the news of this situation, and that the accusation comes from Greenpeace and some outfit called the \u2018Climate Investigations Center.\u2019 Readers have to read all the way to the bottom<\/a> before they get to the bit about the Smithsonian Institute only beginning their inquiry. Who does the NYT<\/em> hit piece<\/a> say runs the Climate Investigations Center? Wait for it \u2026\u2026 Kert Davies<\/a> \u2014 who mere days before this \u2018big news expos\u00e9\u2019 was described in an email by the Rockefeller Family Fund Director Lee Wassermann to the New York Attorney General\u2019s office as Roland Davies<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why did the Smithsonian Institute apparently felt a need to take their press release offline about investigating Dr Soon? As Dr Soon said in this Oct 2022 video clip<\/a> \u2013 the result of the 5 year Smithsonian investigation is that he committed no wrongdoings.<\/strong> If the Smithsonian had<\/em> found anything that even remotely resembled Dr Soon hiding this \u2018Exxon funding\u2019 situation, wouldn\u2019t the revelation had been broadcasted to the entire world by every one of Dr Soon\u2019s detractors from Davies to Desmogblog??<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let me emphasize this again: Allegations of wrongdoing are not proof of wrongdoing<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One more thing here, regarding AG Bonta\u2019s office\u2019s specific wording against Dr Soon: where have we seen that before, in nearly the identical, straying-into-plagiarism-territory? The last in the line of the Sher Edling lawsuits, NJ AG Platkin\u2019s filing. I highlight the wording differences in gray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In the Sept 20th broadcast of the PBS NewsHour, its host interviewed AG Bonta<\/a> about his lawsuit, initially handing him a softball question<\/a> about the complicity of fossil fuel companies in deceiving the public on what they knew, and then later posing a question based on the false premise that the industry was already guilty of causing \u2026\u2026 weather events. No joke<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those were the wrong questions. A proper, objective, hard-nosed investigative team would have carefully read through the filing, done background research on similar filings, spotted items to question, and compiled these kinds of questions for the host to ask:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Your suit alleges that as far back as the 1960s and \u201970s that the industry as a whole knew for certain that usage of their products could lead to catastrophic global warming. How do you justify that in the face of so many news reports and analysis during that time that the Earth might be headed into a period of significant cooling?
\u2022 In your suit, you allege that a particular set of memos, which at least at first glance, seem to be not much more than a set of truisms about how the public might become better informed after learning about what skeptic climate scientists have to say. How do you prove there was an outright conspiracy to deceive the public based on the wording of those memos?
\u2022 Regarding industry-paid corruption of skeptic climate scientists, one of your footnote references was to a 2015 article about a scientist working at that time for the Smithsonian Institute where the allegation was that the scientist failed to disclose Exxon-sourced million dollar-plus funding of his work and the end of the article noted that the Smithsonian Institute was undertaking an investigation as to whether he violated funding disclosure requirements there. Do you know what the Smithsonian Institute\u2019s investigation results were?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Truth of the matter is, after objective examination, this latest People of the State of California v. ExxonMobil<\/em> lawsuit is not a watershed legal action in the least, it is little more than a repackaged repetition of prior lawsuits among a larger lineage of efforts<\/a> dating back to the late 1990s<\/a>**<\/strong> to defame the fossil fuel industry and skeptic climate scientists. And the coverage of this latest lawsuit once again illustrates mainstream media journalism malfeasance on the overall climate issue.
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014
**<\/strong>(Don\u2019t get me started<\/a> on the intellectually dishonest accusation in that screencapture about Dr S Fred Singer\u2019s \u201cExxon\/Shell\/ARCO\/Unocal\/Sun Oil funding,\u201d and how the last objective reporting about such accusations<\/a> was done in 1994<\/strong> by ABC Nightline\u2019s Ted Koppel<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Throw another one onto the \u201cgrowing number\u201d (growing number!) of \u201cExxon Knew\u201d-style lawsuits which insinuate that \u2018Big Oil\u2019 knew the burning of fossil fuels harmed the environment but deceived the public by employing \u2018shill\u2019 climate scientists in \u2018disinformation campaigns\u2019 to say there was no harm.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":280740,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691823019,691818056,691823018,691818228,691818087,691823017],"class_list":{"0":"post-280733","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-exxon-knew","9":"tag-climate-change","10":"tag-exxon-mobil-corporation","11":"tag-fossil-fuels","12":"tag-global-warming","13":"tag-state-of-california","15":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/image-807.png?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1b1X","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":279246,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=279246","url_meta":{"origin":280733,"position":0},"title":"Exxon Knew: California Sues Oil Giants for Committing Free Speech","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/18\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The state of California has filed a sweeping climate lawsuit against Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron, as well as the domestic oil industry\u2019s biggest lobby, the American Petroleum Institute.\u00a0","rel":"","context":"In \"California\"","block_context":{"text":"California","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=california"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/00df7949b2de274fd13466065ad8e605ef.jpg?fit=1200%2C611&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/00df7949b2de274fd13466065ad8e605ef.jpg?fit=1200%2C611&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/00df7949b2de274fd13466065ad8e605ef.jpg?fit=1200%2C611&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/00df7949b2de274fd13466065ad8e605ef.jpg?fit=1200%2C611&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/00df7949b2de274fd13466065ad8e605ef.jpg?fit=1200%2C611&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":407653,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=407653","url_meta":{"origin":280733,"position":1},"title":"Exxon Is Right Again, Bloomberg, Oil and Gas Will Be Needed for Decades to Come","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/11\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"A recent article from Bloomberg, carried by Rigzone, describes Exxon\/Mobil Corporation\u2019s (Exxon) plan to continue investing in and developing oil and gas resources well into the future. This is welcome news, as Exxon is right that oil and gas will be needed for a very long time, not just for\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Bloomberg\"","block_context":{"text":"Bloomberg","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=bloomberg"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/0AQPR-6_Qe9fYyTdjxY83gi2yuzoxGy3Gyj1HHjOVw_7TpTojQl-UY6IKyMJs_wTxg0UpLJILE-qnAqtLlAiz3B7sEYoVlpmdupycM3yrfYUskzsvREu-Sr7t89s02s8q-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C671&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/0AQPR-6_Qe9fYyTdjxY83gi2yuzoxGy3Gyj1HHjOVw_7TpTojQl-UY6IKyMJs_wTxg0UpLJILE-qnAqtLlAiz3B7sEYoVlpmdupycM3yrfYUskzsvREu-Sr7t89s02s8q-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C671&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/0AQPR-6_Qe9fYyTdjxY83gi2yuzoxGy3Gyj1HHjOVw_7TpTojQl-UY6IKyMJs_wTxg0UpLJILE-qnAqtLlAiz3B7sEYoVlpmdupycM3yrfYUskzsvREu-Sr7t89s02s8q-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C671&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/0AQPR-6_Qe9fYyTdjxY83gi2yuzoxGy3Gyj1HHjOVw_7TpTojQl-UY6IKyMJs_wTxg0UpLJILE-qnAqtLlAiz3B7sEYoVlpmdupycM3yrfYUskzsvREu-Sr7t89s02s8q-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C671&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/0AQPR-6_Qe9fYyTdjxY83gi2yuzoxGy3Gyj1HHjOVw_7TpTojQl-UY6IKyMJs_wTxg0UpLJILE-qnAqtLlAiz3B7sEYoVlpmdupycM3yrfYUskzsvREu-Sr7t89s02s8q-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C671&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":279322,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=279322","url_meta":{"origin":280733,"position":2},"title":"\u2018ExxonKnew\u2019: More Correction","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/18\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"A sober look at the \u201cExxonKnew\u201d campaign reveals an anti-fossil-fuel agenda inspiring a myopic view of the company\u2019s old investigations into carbon dioxide (CO2).","rel":"","context":"In \"anti-fossil-fuel agenda\"","block_context":{"text":"anti-fossil-fuel agenda","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=anti-fossil-fuel-agenda"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/image-552.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/image-552.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/image-552.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/image-552.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/image-552.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":428719,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=428719","url_meta":{"origin":280733,"position":3},"title":"ExxonMobil Strikes Back: Judge Greenlights Defamation Suit Against California AG Over Recycling Claims","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/28\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"California, under Attorney General Rob Bonta (and previously in broader actions with Governor Gavin Newsom), has pursued aggressive legal actions against \"Big Oil\" companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips.","rel":"","context":"In \"Big Oil\"","block_context":{"text":"Big Oil","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=big-oil"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/AQMvE5XTSRWNApdEUejRh39zoNMUkvvwibxE9eVujuLo2H9R4_IdrfUSElOCoFMQMyX6CEdRqnnl9qTkzRnI594sZPno8fUbAHJfrbIV3C_QBEOy-29G_mMc9YYPsaRYhsqpLuJDpDtwFUhz3HOQm2HR7ntS8A.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/AQMvE5XTSRWNApdEUejRh39zoNMUkvvwibxE9eVujuLo2H9R4_IdrfUSElOCoFMQMyX6CEdRqnnl9qTkzRnI594sZPno8fUbAHJfrbIV3C_QBEOy-29G_mMc9YYPsaRYhsqpLuJDpDtwFUhz3HOQm2HR7ntS8A.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/AQMvE5XTSRWNApdEUejRh39zoNMUkvvwibxE9eVujuLo2H9R4_IdrfUSElOCoFMQMyX6CEdRqnnl9qTkzRnI594sZPno8fUbAHJfrbIV3C_QBEOy-29G_mMc9YYPsaRYhsqpLuJDpDtwFUhz3HOQm2HR7ntS8A.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/AQMvE5XTSRWNApdEUejRh39zoNMUkvvwibxE9eVujuLo2H9R4_IdrfUSElOCoFMQMyX6CEdRqnnl9qTkzRnI594sZPno8fUbAHJfrbIV3C_QBEOy-29G_mMc9YYPsaRYhsqpLuJDpDtwFUhz3HOQm2HR7ntS8A.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/AQMvE5XTSRWNApdEUejRh39zoNMUkvvwibxE9eVujuLo2H9R4_IdrfUSElOCoFMQMyX6CEdRqnnl9qTkzRnI594sZPno8fUbAHJfrbIV3C_QBEOy-29G_mMc9YYPsaRYhsqpLuJDpDtwFUhz3HOQm2HR7ntS8A.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":258774,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=258774","url_meta":{"origin":280733,"position":4},"title":"ExxonMobil is Right, Net-Zero Efforts Will Cause a Lower Quality of Life","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/23\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"A recent Bloomberg article, titled \u201cExxon Says Reaching Net Zero Global Emissions by 2050 \u2018Highly Unlikely\u2019,\u201d describes a regulatory filing Exxon Mobil Corporation made indicating that there would be significant risk associated with phasing out oil and gas production and use.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0-Quality-of-Life.jpeg?fit=1200%2C857&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0-Quality-of-Life.jpeg?fit=1200%2C857&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0-Quality-of-Life.jpeg?fit=1200%2C857&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0-Quality-of-Life.jpeg?fit=1200%2C857&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0-Quality-of-Life.jpeg?fit=1200%2C857&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":239385,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=239385","url_meta":{"origin":280733,"position":5},"title":"New Harvard Study Proves Exxon Scientists Far Superior at Predicting Climate than the IPCC or James Hansen","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/13\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"I\u2019m sure Russell Cook will have lots to say about this study. I can\u2019t wait.\u00a0I\u2019m sure their blatant attempt at sophistry was not meant to reach the conclusion in my title. Emphasis mine below.~cr","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/00ffa71966261629.5d3a654be108c.jpg?fit=1200%2C877&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/00ffa71966261629.5d3a654be108c.jpg?fit=1200%2C877&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/00ffa71966261629.5d3a654be108c.jpg?fit=1200%2C877&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/00ffa71966261629.5d3a654be108c.jpg?fit=1200%2C877&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/00ffa71966261629.5d3a654be108c.jpg?fit=1200%2C877&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/280733","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=280733"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/280733\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":280744,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/280733\/revisions\/280744"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/280740"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=280733"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=280733"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=280733"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}