Pennsylvania Bucks County v. BP PLC, et al.
Posted on April 8, 2024
There’s only one reason why I don’t label this newest one filed on March 25, 2024 as a “Sher Edling boilerplate copy lawsuit” – it doesn’t have Sher Edling’s official ‘signature’ on it.
It might as well, since it is a near-total copy of their Feb 20 “Chicago v BP” lawsuit – see my dissection of that one here. It shares text straight out of others. No joke, witness how this March 27 Pennsylvania Record article quoting the Bucks County filing as saying fossil fuel companies led …..
…a disinformation campaign beginning as early as the 1970s to discredit the burgeoning scientific consensus on climate change, deny their own knowledge of climate change-related threats, create doubt in the minds of consumers, the media, teachers and the public about the reality and consequences of burning fossil fuels, and delay the necessary transition to a lower-carbon future.
Want to see that almost identically again? Look no farther than Sher Edling’s 12/20/23 twin filings on behalf of two Native American Tribes in Washington state. Those twin filings just left out whose minds the ‘doubt’ was created in. What to see that same basic paragraph wording split into two pieces? It’s in Sher Edling’s nearly 6½ year-old filing of Marin County v Chevron, just without the word “burgeoning” and a couple others. Want to see that word-for-word identical again? Try Sher Edling’s seven weeks-old Chicago v BP. [4/11/24 Author’s addition: Piling on – want to see that same paragraph repeated almost identically outside of all the Sher Edling filings? It’s in California AG Rob Bonta’s CA v Exxon. Hat tip to WUWT commenter “mkelly” about the nonsensical notion of a “burgeoning consensus.”
https://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=16740
